Somer Thompson's Father Forgives Murderer

Orange Park Mom wrote:

The reason he hadn't seen her in two years is because there was a restraining order against him...he is a convicted sex offender.

plz share your info, for from MY understanding,..{and yes, I DO have a LARGE ONE,}...sex offenders are not restrained from seeing their children, UNLESS it is the same child they violated?? Is that what you are saying??
Now I will say that it is STRANGE to me, that a sex offender can get visitation rights, but, an Physical Abuser { Adult/or Child} cannot, MOST times.
PPl should be more cautious in their posting and get their facts straight.
For you have just caused an over-load of phones calls to many Judges and Attorneys wanting to KNOW WHY, their ex is allowed to see their children.

But, if this man can forgive whomever has done this to his child,{no matter his background, the Dad} I must commend him. For it is the BEST thing to do, but, as a parent, and grand parent, I am not sure that I could.{I am not saying, that anything is WRONG with this Dad's belief}.
I personally would want 30 minutes in a room alone with this person, and then, there would be no need for a trial. BUT I WOULD have to HAVE PROOF!! Not just belief....
But considering the trauma this family has felt, to be honest, I am ashamed for replying to this post, for I do believe this family has had enough to deal with, not counting the negative comments posted here.
What is the point of society dissecting the relationship within their family??
It will not provide the attacker. now will it??
We all need to remember, it could have been anyone of us, that stands where this family stands now....

MisPlaceD wrote:

<quote.plz share your info, for from MY understanding,..{and yes, I DO have a LARGE ONE,}...sex offenders are not restrained from seeing their children, UNLESS it is the same child they violated?? Is that what you are saying??
Now I will say that it is STRANGE to me, that a sex offender can get visitation rights, but, an Physical Abuser { Adult/or Child} cannot, MOST times.

As you said, sex offenders can see and live with their children (in most states) unless they were the victim. But yet you dont understand why a chilg abuser cant? They fit in with the offenders who victimize their own kids. Have you ever seen a non domestic child abuser? Like someone is going to knock down your door, or come watch your kids(outside of a baby sitter) and beat the hell out of them. Even so, they would have no legal right to the kids like a dad. So, in order to have a child abuser who needs restraining, then it would have to be a parrent to the victim. You cant even compair it to a sex offender who has not and is not victimizing his or her kids. What about the female teacher svrewing her students? That is very serious. But she is no threat to her kids. Atleast not sexually.
Now to be offended as far as some of us thinking mom could be suspect or any family member for that matter. As you said, it could be any of us. That also means it could be the mom, dad, boy friend or kids who know the truth. Tell me this, what evidence do they have to rule out the kids or mother to the truth? But yet they easily rule out every sex offender in a 5 mile radius. The more i hear the more i really thing there is more to that scuffle than what the kids have said. But i would sure hate to think that the family has anything to do with this at all. But im sure people like you said the same about comments against Susan Smith till she confessed. Hell, even i didnt believe it.

Perry Mason wrote:

<quoted text>
But im sure people like you said the same about comments against Susan Smith till she confessed. Hell, even i didnt believe it.

I knew I should have clarified my statement more. my point...is if you abuse in any fashion visitation should be limited, to say the least, under supervision, if allowed.

By child abuser, I meant, by ways of discipline. not by trying to kill a child. naturally, abuse under any heading regarding a child is unforgivable.
But, sexual abuse to a child (& an adult) is a life long sentence. Mentally.....
you can overcome alot of issues (as children bounce back easier than adults ,but it tends to re-surface as adults)..but you can't run from what is placed in one's mind.
But, to say that a sexual offender is no threat to their own children is wrong, for if you remove other children, then often more times a sexual abuser has or will abused his/her child/ren, and it never becomes known. Children tend to still love their attackers, before and after. And often times children believe it is "somethng they did wrong"
My mind goes in all directions concerning this case, & others like this one,...I. too question many things.
But am I qualified to question...legally no,...for I don't have all the info, and I am not sure I would want to know all the info.... It is sad, and the sad part is we will read yet another story of a child being abused or maimed or...as this child...disappearing with the same results.
We can debate all day long, but, will we ever know the real truth behind this child and Haleigh & many others, probably not.
Will the info we hear protect our children,...no probably not.
It is up to each parent to second guess and be sure, often times creating more havoc and commitment than one can imagine.
But, it is today's times we live in, not 1950's.

Why is it that almost every time a child 'disappears' in small town, white, Amerika that their is at least one sexual offender in the child's immediate family?

Sure, I know that the white man has cornered the market when it comes to viscous crimes against children, but just change the child's name and city and the story all the same.

We saw in Putnam county all the sex offenders coming out of the woodwork. Not to mention the sheriff actively turning a blind eye, despite national media attention, as Ronald Cummings continued to carry out statutory rape.

Until we get to the root of the problems of child rape and incest in white, small town, Amerika, we might as well not even report such disappearances as news.

Rape of a child by the white man in these areas is as Amerikan as apple pie.

It's clear to me we need a solution to this white pollution, if for no one else but the innocent children.

ConsciousColonel wrote:

Why is it that almost every time a child 'disappears' in small town, white, Amerika that their is at least one sexual offender in the child's immediate family?
.

I am going to comment on this....knowing better...

the reason you hear of more White's in this settings is....the other race is too busy killing themselves off, so we never know what they did before their untimely death by the same race.

Each race has bad apples and seeds, and yet we still survive, or some of us do.
BUT, I must say that generally...a black woman is MORE in-tune to where her children are at younger ages, and will smack the fire from the seat of the pants of any child that goes a stray.
It is when they feel that testerones age that they become deadly targets by their own race. NOT saying all,...but most,...and their mothers cry the same tears as a White woman.
Ask any woman of a child killed by his own race,..and I am sure you will hear the same question....Why??
Just as white mothers ask the same question when they child is violated? Why??
And if you are going to say it, say it right....
America!!! A-M-E-R-I-C-A

Got to go the PO-Po's are near......my Internet time is over til the wee hours of dawn~~~~
LMAO!~~~

ConsciousColonel
You preach much on white america but you cant even spell it. I get the impression that you are not even american. Or you are perhaps middle eastern american. But if you be a white person at all, learn to spell America if you are going to live here! I dont care if its even in another language. Just spell it right. I thought at first it was a typo.

MisPlaceD
Very well said. But actually, it is a small percentage of sex offenders that are capable of touching their own children. Studdies are not sure why. But even if you remove other children they wont harm their kids only for that reason. Point is, if they harm their own kids then it is the other way around. They would harm their own first, then move on to others. For those capable who would harm their own at all that is.

Perry Mason wrote:

ConsciousColonel
.
MisPlaceD
Very well said. But actually, it is a small percentage of sex offenders that are capable of touching their own children. Studdies are not sure why. But even if you remove other children they wont harm their kids only for that reason. Point is, if they harm their own kids then it is the other way around. They would harm their own first, then move on to others. For those capable who would harm their own at all that is.

I stand corrected.
Thank you, for doing so in a peaceable manner....
and thank you for staying ON TOPIC,...instead of my social standing and apparent failures in life.

MisPlaceD wrote:

<quoted text>
I am going to comment on this....knowing better...
the reason you hear of more White's in this settings is....the other race is too busy killing themselves off, so we never know what they did before their untimely death by the same race.
Each race has bad apples and seeds, and yet we still survive, or some of us do.
BUT, I must say that generally...a black woman is MORE in-tune to where her children are at younger ages, and will smack the fire from the seat of the pants of any child that goes a stray.
It is when they feel that testerones age that they become deadly targets by their own race. NOT saying all,...but most,...and their mothers cry the same tears as a White woman.
Ask any woman of a child killed by his own race,..and I am sure you will hear the same question....Why??
Just as white mothers ask the same question when they child is violated? Why??
And if you are going to say it, say it right....
America!!! A-M-E-R-I-C-A
Got to go the PO-Po's are near......my Internet time is over til the wee hours of dawn~~~~
LMAO!~~~

You can't measure an oppressed people with the same measuring stick as you measure your oppressor.

In any country, the disenfranchised, less educated and impoverished group will naturally become the most violent. Since the Negro first stepped foot onto Amerikan soil he has made up the majority of that group and that is by design. Institutions set up by the white man to serve the white man have done and still do whatever they can from allowing an even playing field for all Amerikans.

From the poorest Negro to the richest white child.

That's because when the playing field is even, the Negro, by his genetic dominance, will ultimately excel and surpass the white man. That's been proven in every field from athletics, medicine, politics and numerous other fields in between.

So until we can give these oppressed people a legitimate shot at a better future, the same opp. for education and employment as we do the majority of white society, we are not in a position to judge what they might do to survive.

But what's the white man's excuse for his excessive abuse, rape and often murder of children? Why does he constantly the perpetrator of cowardly mass murder?

We know poverty breeds crime.

And in my book their is no offense worse than an offense against a child.

Perry Mason wrote:

ConsciousColonel
You preach much on white america but you cant even spell it. I get the impression that you are not even american. Or you are perhaps middle eastern american. But if you be a white person at all, learn to spell America if you are going to live here! I dont care if its even in another language. Just spell it right. I thought at first it was a typo.

If you don't care for my comments I suggest you don't read them.

They day I let a pink toed heathen like yourself tell me what to do is the day I put a bullet in my brain.

ConsciousColonel wrote:

<quoted text>
If you don't care for my comments I suggest you don't read them.
They day I let a pink toed heathen like yourself tell me what to do is the day I put a bullet in my brain.

how will i know if i care or not for your comments unless i read them.
And you can just skip the part of the pink toed heathen like myself and just do that last part.

Julianna wrote:

<quoted text>
Nope! I in no way blame LEO for this child's disappearance. Once the perp is caught, then authorities have a duty to prevent him from ever seeing the light of day again. Stop the foolishness.

Perps? You have been watching too much telvision.

Orange Park Mom wrote:

The reason he hadn't seen her in two years is because there was a restraining order against him...he is a convicted sex offender.

Then the mom should sue the restraining order for it letting the kid become ten toes up in a sanitary landfill.

Richard_ wrote:

<quoted text>Then the mom should sue the restraining order for it letting the kid become ten toes up in a sanitary landfill.

Why should that happen? If the Father was abiding by the laws set before him. How did the restraining order "allow" this child to become 10 toes up in a landfill, as "you" put it?

Who ever wrote on here the father was a child molester please provide yoour PROOF!!

Richard_ wrote:

<quoted text>Then the mom should sue the restraining order for it letting the kid become ten toes up in a sanitary landfill.

Sue a restraining order?????? you friggin idiot.

This statement has out dumbazzed everybody......

reader wrote:

Who ever wrote on here the father was a child molester please provide yoour PROOF!!

Im pretty sure that if the dad was a chester then Nancy Grace would have been on that like a hound dog on the trail of a rabid, one eyed, three legged possum up a corn diggers ass!

Richard_ wrote:

<quoted text>Perps? You have been watching too much telvision.

It's a funny thing, Richard. I don't even need to turn the TV on to realize kids don't snatch themselves off the street, kill themselves and then dump their own bodies in a landfill. Yeah, I must be simple like that.

Perry Mason wrote:

<quoted text>
Im pretty sure that if the dad was a chester then Nancy Grace would have been on that like a hound dog on the trail of a rabid, one eyed, three legged possum up a corn diggers ass!

Yes, I believe that would be widely known by now too. I won't believe that's true unless given proof. And the person who started this rumor needs their azz kicked. That's not something you just randomly say about someone or repeat what you heard because it's scandalous.

reader wrote:

<quoted text>
If the Father was abiding by the laws set before him. How did the restraining order "allow" this child to become 10 toes up in a landfill, as "you" put it?

"IF" is the middle word in lIFe, fIFe and wIFe.

LOL wrote:

<quoted text>
Sue a restraining order?????? you friggin idiot.
This statement has out dumbazzed everybody......

You don't think an inanimate object can be sued?

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/bardwell/us_v...

Cite as U.S. v. One Colt Machine Gun, 625 F.Supp. 1539 (S.D.Fla. 1986)

United States of America, Plaintiff, v. One Colt Machine Gun, Model MG-52-2,.50 Caliber, Aircraft Serial No. C-2428-HB, and 363 Rounds .50 Caliber Ammunition, Defendants.

No. 84-8510-Civ.
United States District Court, S.D. Florida, N.D.
Jan. 16, 1986.