jehovahs witness protection: Dead for Tax Reasons: He says he loves children

yeah, that's why he's in this mess

if you're 100, isn't anyone under, say, 80 a child to you, so just mess around with the legal segment of those at it'll be almost the same, right?

Maybe he should switch to midgets.

Sure, why not? Midgets are just like kids.

/Except, midgets don't have souls.

Calvin Butterball: jehovahs witness protection: Dead for Tax Reasons: He says he loves children

yeah, that's why he's in this mess

if you're 100, isn't anyone under, say, 80 a child to you, so just mess around with the legal segment of those at it'll be almost the same, right?

Maybe he should switch to midgets.

Sure, why not? Midgets are just like kids.

/Except, midgets don't have souls.

Or a wide stance.

medius: Calvin Butterball: midgets don't have souls

or tight anuses

Depends how quickly you pounce. Note, due to the short legs midgets will not flee, thus stealth is necessary to induce proper constriction.

mmmmm

Also, who the hell leaves their 4 year old and 7 year old with a 90 year old man?

What a 100-year-old pedophile may look like.
What a 100-year-old pedophile may be doing.

"You like popsicles?"

Goddamn. All within a few seconds.

Vash's Apprentice: mmmmm

DAMMIT!

Did the two sisters testify that he touched them or did someone over-react? The prosecutors are not always right. Since the beginning of the 'Judicial System' there have been innocent people thrown in jail. Do yourself a favor and don't judge the guy by reading a poorly written article off the intarwebs.

He says he loves children and hopes to clear his name so that he can start up a relationship with several great-grandchildren he has never met.

Oh dear God. Let's hope those kids never meet great grandpa.

tuxq: Did the two sisters testify that he touched them or did someone over-react? The prosecutors are not always right. Since the beginning of the 'Judicial System' there have been innocent people thrown in jail. Do yourself a favor and don't judge the guy by reading a poorly written article off the intarwebs.

How about we judge him based on the fact that he was in fact convicted? Is that fair enough for you?

"get'cho fat arse back here."

I see two completely different stories here. One side I see a man who claims nothing ever happened and then the other is the system trying to paint him as some insane man who is "Evil"

"Mr. Sypnier is the personification of evil and should be removed from civilized society permanently, until the day he dies," Sedita said. "He is an unrepentant child molester who has been doing this or trying to do this for 60 years. He can't be cured. He's not sick. He's evil. He's not old. He's evil."

I dunno what it takes to be called this, I would need to know more about the cases before understanding what is going on. How much evidence was around to put this guy away?

He should be shot for using words like 'hanky-panky' alone.

Gamer Grrrl: tuxq: Did the two sisters testify that he touched them or did someone over-react? The prosecutors are not always right. Since the beginning of the 'Judicial System' there have been innocent people thrown in jail. Do yourself a favor and don't judge the guy by reading a poorly written article off the intarwebs.

How about we judge him based on the fact that he was in fact convicted? Is that fair enough for you?

No it's not, because I've seen first hand someone innocent being thrown in jail and someone guilty walk scot-free. I've lost all faith in our judicial system and don't see it as anything more than a method of temporarily inconveniencing the bad guy.

He looks good for 100.

Thisbymaster: I dunno what it takes to be called this, I would need to know more about the cases before understanding what is going on. How much evidence was around to put this guy away?

Well...

FTFA: Sypnier, King said, was stubborn and rebellious in maintaining he was innocent, despite confessing to authorities.

...there's that.

He prefers twenty eight year olds.

tuxq: Did the two sisters testify that he touched them or did someone over-react? The prosecutors are not always right. Since the beginning of the 'Judicial System' there have been innocent people thrown in jail. Do yourself a favor and don't judge the guy by reading a poorly written article off the intarwebs.

The part that always creeped me out the most is that if a man claims his innocence, he's pegged as unrepentant, and given harsher punishments. It's as if judges like to pretend the system is perfect and that false convictions never existed and never will.

But then, that's how most citizens like to view the justice system too. I guess it's easier to sleep at night that way.

Gamer Grrrl: Is that fair enough for you?

Only marginally. Call me again when the system improves its batting average.

ranfour
He prefers twenty eight year olds.

That's a lot of kids.

Also, he was convicted of several different crimes over the last 30 years, AND his daughter says he molested her.

Makes me think that there will be some good uses for Obama's "death panels".

tuxq: Did the two sisters testify that he touched them or did someone over-react? The prosecutors are not always right. Since the beginning of the 'Judicial System' there have been innocent people thrown in jail. Do yourself a favor and don't judge the guy by reading a poorly written article off the intarwebs.

LEAVE GRANDPA ALONE!!!
[insert youtube Brittany chick pic here]

tuxq: Gamer Grrrl: tuxq: Did the two sisters testify that he touched them or did someone over-react? The prosecutors are not always right. Since the beginning of the 'Judicial System' there have been innocent people thrown in jail. Do yourself a favor and don't judge the guy by reading a poorly written article off the intarwebs.

How about we judge him based on the fact that he was in fact convicted? Is that fair enough for you?

No it's not, because I've seen first hand someone innocent being thrown in jail and someone guilty walk scot-free. I've lost all faith in our judicial system and don't see it as anything more than a method of temporarily inconveniencing the bad guy.

So you're assuming the old guy is innocent based on what happened to someone else somewhere else. Your logic is flawed.

FTFA: He says he loves children and hopes to clear his name so that he can start up a relationship with several great-grandchildren he has never met.

oh hell no.

I submitted this with a worse headline.

To play devils advocate, he's been actually claiming innocence for years and years and years now. Pleading guilty is often recommended by lawyers (and cops) as a way of just "Getting it over with" for a reduced sentence.

His alleged victims were 4 and 7. There is lots and lots of evidence that Children that young can be suggested into saying pretty much anything. Particularly if paranoid mothers and social workers repeatedly ask in such a way that the child believes that they should give them the "right answer." As a matter of fact, in some cases, children who denied abuse were denied food or parental contact until they stopped "lying" and testified.

I hope very much that the juries who saw his case had all this information in mind, and that the people who know him and assert his guilt know him better than you or I, so it is entirely possible if not probable that he is, in fact, guilty. However, none of us, nor most of the people quoted in the article, know enough about the situation to actually be able to judge.

Gamer Grrrl: tuxq: Gamer Grrrl: tuxq: Did the two sisters testify that he touched them or did someone over-react? The prosecutors are not always right. Since the beginning of the 'Judicial System' there have been innocent people thrown in jail. Do yourself a favor and don't judge the guy by reading a poorly written article off the intarwebs.

How about we judge him based on the fact that he was in fact convicted? Is that fair enough for you?

No it's not, because I've seen first hand someone innocent being thrown in jail and someone guilty walk scot-free. I've lost all faith in our judicial system and don't see it as anything more than a method of temporarily inconveniencing the bad guy.

So you're assuming the old guy is innocent based on what happened to someone else somewhere else. Your logic is flawed.

Do you read one line at a time or are you too incompetent to keep things in context? I neither said nor did I denote the man was innocent. Please re-read my statement and try again.

Back when I was your age we didn't have crimes like pedophilia, thats the way it was... and we like it!

I wonder how many more really old and creepy pedophiles we'd have around if more people retained full mental and physical function in their advanced age, like this guy did.

tenhigh: I wonder how many more really old and creepy pedophiles we'd have around if more people retained full mental and physical function in their advanced age, like this guy did.

or maybe that is why he has retained full mental and physical function because of the young virgin blood?

Steve132: To play devils advocate, he's been actually claiming innocence for years and years and years now. Pleading guilty is often recommended by lawyers (and cops) as a way of just "Getting it over with" for a reduced sentence.

His alleged victims were 4 and 7. There is lots and lots of evidence that Children that young can be suggested into saying pretty much anything. Particularly if paranoid mothers and social workers repeatedly ask in such a way that the child believes that they should give them the "right answer." As a matter of fact, in some cases, children who denied abuse were denied food or parental contact until they stopped "lying" and testified.

I hope very much that the juries who saw his case had all this information in mind, and that the people who know him and assert his guilt know him better than you or I, so it is entirely possible if not probable that he is, in fact, guilty. However, none of us, nor most of the people quoted in the article, know enough about the situation to actually be able to judge.

He was convicted two other times for child molestation. I'm pretty sure he's not the innocent victim here.

simonbarkoba: Pedophilia is a disease, likely genetic and incurable. Pedophiles should be treated like anyone else with a disease which threatens the public safety. Quarantine. In this case, lifetime imprisonment in a locked institution for the criminal insane.

So what should we do with people with incurable diseases that pose a threat to the people around them?(hint: it has something to do with HIV)

I knew before I ever read the story there'd be Mr Herbert references. So predictable.

Still funny, but also predictable.

tuxq: Gamer Grrrl: tuxq: Gamer Grrrl: tuxq: Did the two sisters testify that he touched them or did someone over-react? The prosecutors are not always right. Since the beginning of the 'Judicial System' there have been innocent people thrown in jail. Do yourself a favor and don't judge the guy by reading a poorly written article off the intarwebs.

How about we judge him based on the fact that he was in fact convicted? Is that fair enough for you?

No it's not, because I've seen first hand someone innocent being thrown in jail and someone guilty walk scot-free. I've lost all faith in our judicial system and don't see it as anything more than a method of temporarily inconveniencing the bad guy.

So you're assuming the old guy is innocent based on what happened to someone else somewhere else. Your logic is flawed.

Do you read one line at a time or are you too incompetent to keep things in context? I neither said nor did I denote the man was innocent. Please re-read my statement and try again.

Okay dude. You said you doubted he was guilty, and when I pointed out he was actually convicted, you said something along the lines of "the justice system sucks based on my anecdotal evidence."

If someone's convicted of a crime, (and this is the THIRD TIME this guy was convicted for diddling a kid) I feel comfortable judging him. Not everyone who is convicted is guilty of their crime, but in this case, I'm pretty comfortable saying the guy's a serial child molester, seeing as how he's been convicted in three separate cases.

Gamer Grrrl: tuxq:

How about we judge him based on the fact that he was in fact convicted? Is that fair enough for you?


So you're assuming the old guy is innocent based on what happened to someone else somewhere else. Your logic is flawed.

Your logic is that the old guy is guilty based on the presumption that the justice system is infallible, children never lie, and that mothers, prosecutors, and case-workers can never have an axe to grind or be affected by hysteria, and a few other demonstrably false premises.

His logic is "Theorem 1) conviction==guilty. Observation 1) I know someone who was convicted who was not guilty. Q.E.D, Theorem 1) is invalid."

Your logic is far more flawed than his.

Thisbymaster: simonbarkoba: Pedophilia is a disease, likely genetic and incurable. Pedophiles should be treated like anyone else with a disease which threatens the public safety. Quarantine. In this case, lifetime imprisonment in a locked institution for the criminal insane.

So what should we do with people with incurable diseases that pose a threat to the people around them?(hint: it has something to do with HIV)

AIDS doesn't make people want to bareback everyone they see in order to spread the disease.

This is what 4channers will look like when they're old.

/It's fun to imagine how this generation will look when they're old
//Not so fun when you think of their offspring...