Man Tasers Man over Alleged Pornography

[DaytonIllini]

http://www.kdvr.com/news/ktla-dad-us...tory?track=rss

TEMECULA, Calif. -- An angry father is accused of using a stun gun on a 23 year old man who sent his 17 year old daughter an explicit cell phone picture.

William Atwood Sr., 45, was charged Wednesday with multiple felonies in connection with the case.

Authorities say Atwood lured Justin Moore to his home, ordered him to strip down to his boxer shorts, and tied him up and tased him with a stun gun before turning him over to a sheriff's deputy.

Apparently the old saying about owning a shotgun and a shovel is better than owning a taser and a phone. I wish that I could be on this poor bastard's jury.

[ill07]

Come on now, really? There are so many things wrong with this story, and I'm afraid that the fact that he sent the explicit picture is NOT the worst of them.

Sorry, but this guy needs to be locked away for a while.

[Illini1956]

Originally Posted by ill07

Come on now, really? There are so many things wrong with this story, and I'm afraid that the fact that he sent the explicit picture is NOT the worst of them.

Sorry, but this guy needs to be locked away for a while.

Apparently you do not have any daughters.

[ill07]

Originally Posted by Illini1956

Apparently you do not have any daughters.

Even if I did, my response would not change. There is never and excuse for luring someone to your house in order to tie them up and physically assault them. NEVER.

I believe in the rule of law. And if you sanction this, then who is to say when you do something someone else doesn't like and they decide to pull this one on you, that they are in the wrong? Who gets to decide what offenses make it ok for this to be done?

A normal person calls the police and lets them handle it. Sorry, but this guy is a psychopath and needs to be locked up.

[-josh-]

I would have just done the normal thing that fathers do, threaten to kick his ass and if he still did it, follow up on said threat.

[DaytonIllini]

Being unable to distinguish how beating someone's rear is better than tasering them I am uncertain of what josh is suggesting. I can guarantee ill07 has no daughters. Until you do, you have zero idea how you would respond. 20 years ago, I would never have empathized with this dude. Now, I regret that he didn't find a deep lake, a 55 gallon drum and a sack of concrete.

[ill07]

Originally Posted by DaytonIllini

Being unable to distinguish how beating someone's rear is better than tasering them I am uncertain of what josh is suggesting. I can guarantee ill07 has no daughters. Until you do, you have zero idea how you would respond. 20 years ago, I would never have empathized with this dude. Now, I regret that he didn't find a deep lake, a 55 gallon drum and a sack of concrete.

Fortunately, we live in a civilized society where you are asked, no forced, to refrain from your urge to retaliate. He did not. And I do find it somewhat reprehensible that you would be inclined to find him not guilty if you were on the jury.

I don't hold your visceral reaction against you, but the man committed a crime, and should be held accountable. Your subjective judgment that he shouldn't be suggested to punishment opens the door to anyone being allowed to do such things if something that THEY hold dear is attacked or otherwise denigrated.

[DaytonIllini]

Well the world is more pansified that I care to see it. Your premise that this is a world of laws and therefore we should subject ourselves to them falls apart fairly quickly in the real world where criminals walk free and the innocent are incarcerated. In an ideal world one might simply have called the police and the police would have gathered up the offender and tasered him or castrated him or imprisoned him for a period of time. Unfortunately we live in a world where a cop can murder innocents when drunk and walk free and where a guy can send a picture of his "johnson" to a minor and walk away.

Taking the law into your own hands becomes progressively more likely when the law itself is so flagrantly abused. Could you really not empathize if a family member hunted that cop down and butchered him like a hog?

[ill07]

Originally Posted by DaytonIllini

Well the world is more pansified that I care to see it. Your premise that this is a world of laws and therefore we should subject ourselves to them falls apart fairly quickly in the real world where criminals walk free and the innocent are incarcerated.

So chaos is better?

Originally Posted by DaytonIllini

In an ideal world one might simply have called the police and the police would have gathered up the offender and tasered him or castrated him or imprisoned him for a period of time.

No, in an ideal world, the cop would arrest him, and then he would receive a trial and due process, which are cornerstones of our society, after which he would hopefully be convicted.

What happens in this case, if it turns out that it was not this man who sent the picture, but rather a friend or even nemesis who used his phone to do it? Fairness would dictate that he should be allowed to get the father, tie him up, and taser him back for wrongly subjecting him to that punishment. But we can't have that, can we?

Originally Posted by DaytonIllini

Unfortunately we live in a world where a cop can murder innocents when drunk and walk free and where a guy can send a picture of his "johnson" to a minor and walk away.

Of course, that's unfortunate. I don't think I've argued otherwise.

Originally Posted by DaytonIllini

Taking the law into your own hands becomes progressively more likely when the law itself is so flagrantly abused. Could you really not empathize if a family member hunted that cop down and butchered him like a hog?

That doesn't make it right, nor does it mitigate the fact that it will lead to chaos. Maybe I could and maybe I couldn't (I honestly don't know). But even if I could, I would not, and could not in good conscience, vote on a jury to acquit.

Further, the fact is that this man did not even give the chance for the criminal justice system to work. He trapped this guy, bound him, and tasered him BEFORE calling the police. I'm sorry, but that is thoroughly unacceptable, and I have ZERO problem condemning him and hoping he pays the price for it.

[ill07]

And the major problem lies in the subjectivity of what you propose. Should I be allowed to impose my own brand of vigilante justice on anyone I deemed to have wronged me or a substantial interest of mine? Do I get to choose what the appropriate level of retaliation is?

I'm sure that you can comprehend this fundamental problem. But you are emotionally blinded to it (not that I can necessarily fault you for that). But our civilization requires us to set aside our emotions and act within the rules of the society that we've set up. It's hard to set aside emotions, but it's necessary.

[DaytonIllini]

I just have no problem with it. I guess it is a good thing for your system that I will never serve on a jury.

We saw how well the justice system worked in this case. The creep never even got charged. I will bet you the guy you think is a creep will get off pretty lightly if his lawyer does even a halfway decent job of voir dire.

[ill07]

Originally Posted by DaytonIllini

I just have no problem with it. I guess it is a good thing for your system that I will never serve on a jury.

We saw how well the justice system worked in this case. The creep never even got charged. I will bet you the guy you think is a creep will get off pretty lightly if his lawyer does even a halfway decent job of voir dire.

Very good indeed. I can't sanction that, especially given my oath to uphold the Constitution and the laws...

Have you considered the fact that maybe he wasn't charged because there wasn't evidence? As I said before, what if it was his friend, or an enemy of his that decided to do it using his phone? You are operating under the presumption that he was guilty, when in fact you have no idea if that's true or not.

Do I need to list the parade of horribles on THAT line of reasoning?

[Illest]

I completely sympathize with the father. There's nothing psychopathic about getting angry in his situation. The kid is (1) sending unwanted sexual pictures of himself (2) to a minor. (And the kid (3) apparently texts while driving to boot, so I don't get the impression he's a real upright citizen even when not making advances on high schoolers.)

But look, 07 is right that we have a justice system for a reason. If you allow vigilante justice, where do you draw the line? The law doesn't make exceptions for instances where someone slept with your wife or drunkenly rear-ended your car or even ran a red light and killed a family member of yours. There are even instances where you may be mortally outraged and you know that the law would never rectify the damages to you, like if it's your girlfriend who cheats on you, or if someone draws a picture of your prophet. It may seem satisfying to make an exception in this case, in part because we see dad whooping inappropriate suitors as almost traditional. But a broad swath of other vigilante justice is traditional in its own way too. If you want the law to make an exception in this case, change the law.

The justice system is allowed to use some discretion, and I would imagine that the father will ultimately receive a lenient punishment because of the unusual circumstances under which this incident happened. But you can't legitimize what he did entirely, or else you're opening pandora's box.

Now, why the kid is not being prosecuted is a mystery to me.

[ill07]

Originally Posted by Illest

There's nothing psychopathic about getting angry in his situation.

Never said there was. I have issue with what he DID, not that he was angry.

[Illest]

Originally Posted by ill07

Never said there was. I have issue with what he DID, not that he was angry.

No, what he did shows a lack of self-restraint, not psychopathy. It's not particularly abnormal for someone in the dad's situation to want to do those things.

Not that self-restraint isn't important. Some parents would like to do similar things to anyone who sleeps with an unmarried daughter.

[DaytonIllini]

Of course logically I agree with everything illest said and most of what ill07 said as well. That said, I still believe that when citizens feel that they cannot rely on the law, they will take matters into their own hands. As long as they understand that there may well be a ill07 prepared to prosecute them, I can empathize and sympathize and understand their desire for vengeance.

[ill07]

Originally Posted by Illest

No, what he did shows a lack of self-restraint, not psychopathy. It's not particularly abnormal for someone in the dad's situation to want to do those things.

Not that self-restraint isn't important. Some parents would like to do similar things to anyone who sleeps with an unmarried daughter.

Eh, I suppose maybe it's not psychotic in terms of medical terminology. I still think that trapping someone, tying them up, and tasering them is a disproportionate response for just sending an explicit picture to a 17 year old girl. I could understand it more for a more serious offense.

[Illest]

Originally Posted by ill07

Eh, I suppose maybe it's not psychotic in terms of medical terminology. I still think that trapping someone, tying them up, and tasering them is a disproportionate response for just sending an explicit picture to a 17 year old girl. I could understand it more for a more serious offense.

Wait a minute. This wasn't simply giving inappropriate material to a minor. This was a picture of his genitals, and it was clearly unwanted, or else the girl wouldn't have told her dad. That's not just indecent exposure; that's aggressive harassment of a minor.

Heck, you do agree that what the boy did was illegal, right? Which do you think is worse, getting tased, or explaining that you're a sex offender to every future neighbor or potential employer?

[ill07]

Originally Posted by Illest

Wait a minute. This wasn't simply giving inappropriate material to a minor. This was a picture of his genitals, and it was clearly unwanted, or else the girl wouldn't have told her dad. That's not just indecent exposure; that's aggressive harassment of a minor.

Heck, you do agree that what the boy did was illegal, right? Which do you think is worse, getting tased, or explaining that you're a sex offender to every future neighbor or potential employer?

Wait a minute yourself. You are making a whole bunch of assumptions here, that--without knowing more intimate details--are unwarranted.

You claim that the picture must have been unwanted because she told her dad. I don't think you can definitively say this. She may have told her dad that she thought it was funny for all you know. Or perhaps he caught a glimpse of her phone, or noticed her acting a little secretive and asked her what was up. Maybe it was truly unwanted and traumatizing to her. But I don't think you can say that.

The only reason I can definitively say that I think what he did was illegal is because she is under 18. It's certainly possible that there is some indecent exposure or similar crime going on if it was truly unwanted.

Jowever, the article also points to the fact that the guy and the girl were acquainted, which makes it different than some random flasher, in my opinion. If the guy was telling the truth, and he sent it out to a whole list of friends as a joke, and she happened to be on that list, I don't really think it indicates a targeted sexual harassment of this girl, and thus yes, I do think being tied up nearly naked and tased for 20 seconds is a HUGE overreaction.

And finally, it wasn't a choice between getting tased and getting convicted and becoming a sex offender. It's not like the tasing destroyed the evidence.

I'm sorry, but getting the guy to come over, threatening him with a shotgun to get him out of the car, getting him down to his underwear and tying him up, and then tasing him for 20 seconds is abhorrent to me. I will not condone it, and I hope that not only does he get convicted, but that this guy sues the crap out of him.

The guy may be a huge creep (or not, I don't really know and neither do you), but momma always taught me that two wrongs do not make a right. No sympathy here.

[Illini1956]

Originally Posted by ill07

Fortunately, we live in a civilized society where you are asked, no forced, to refrain from your urge to retaliate. He did not. And I do find it somewhat reprehensible that you would be inclined to find him not guilty if you were on the jury.

I don't hold your visceral reaction against you, but the man committed a crime, and should be held accountable. Your subjective judgment that he shouldn't be suggested to punishment opens the door to anyone being allowed to do such things if something that THEY hold dear is attacked or otherwise denigrated.

How did you feel when OJ was let free bu the jury in spite of overwhelming evidence? I understand we should follow the rule of law, but far too many people walk on a police error exploited by an attorney that looks at the fee and not what is right for society.

[IntenselyOrange]

Originally Posted by ill07

Wait a minute yourself. You are making a whole bunch of assumptions here, that--without knowing more intimate details--are unwarranted.

You claim that the picture must have been unwanted because she told her dad. I don't think you can definitively say this. She may have told her dad that she thought it was funny for all you know. Or perhaps he caught a glimpse of her phone, or noticed her acting a little secretive and asked her what was up. Maybe it was truly unwanted and traumatizing to her. But I don't think you can say that.

The only reason I can definitively say that I think what he did was illegal is because she is under 18. It's certainly possible that there is some indecent exposure or similar crime going on if it was truly unwanted.

Jowever, the article also points to the fact that the guy and the girl were acquainted, which makes it different than some random flasher, in my opinion. If the guy was telling the truth, and he sent it out to a whole list of friends as a joke, and she happened to be on that list, I don't really think it indicates a targeted sexual harassment of this girl, and thus yes, I do think being tied up nearly naked and tased for 20 seconds is a HUGE overreaction.

And finally, it wasn't a choice between getting tased and getting convicted and becoming a sex offender. It's not like the tasing destroyed the evidence.

I'm sorry, but getting the guy to come over, threatening him with a shotgun to get him out of the car, getting him down to his underwear and tying him up, and then tasing him for 20 seconds is abhorrent to me. I will not condone it, and I hope that not only does he get convicted, but that this guy sues the crap out of him.

The guy may be a huge creep (or not, I don't really know and neither do you), but momma always taught me that two wrongs do not make a right. No sympathy here.

You are right, but he better get a jury of his peers and all the empathy that will come from fathers with daughters. He deserves some punishment but as I'm sure Sotomayor would agree fathers with girls have certain experiences that put them in a much better position to judge this event. It's not about the letter of the law but in it's spirit and its compassion for people.

[Illest]

07, I agree that the father's behavior was abhorrent but disagree (conditional to some extent on my reading of what happened) that what he did was a particularly disproportionate punishment for what the kid did in the absence of legal redress. Like I say, I think our laws (which represent our societal values) actually prescribe an even harsher punishment.

[illinirazorback]

This depends entirely upon the state. I'm pretty sure 17 is legal age in some states. Naturally I could be wrong. I don't have children yet but sympathize with the father, even though what he did is wrong and deserves to be punished. I hope he is not punished severely and given somewhat of a break, but it was still wrong under the system of laws we live by.

If 17 is legal age wherever this was, then actually the 23 year old may have done nothing wrong (legally). If 18 is legal age, then he did do wrong, and should also be punished.

I understand sympathy for the father, but this seems pretty cut-and-dry to me, legally.

[illini80]

I understand the law, but in the same situation I would love to have a taser at my disposal. I would take my punishment gladly. I have a theory that if people actually feared the consequences of their actions, this type of thing would happen less often.

[illinifan87]

Don't tase me bro!