Sometimes there are no winners, only losers. That seems to be the case in Michigan, in which a father became so upset that his fifteen year old son raped a three year old girl that he shot him to death over it.
HIGHLAND PARK, Mich. - A 37-year-old father irate over hearing his 15-year-old son had sexual contact with a 3-year-old girl made the teen strip at gunpoint, marched him to a vacant lot and shot him to death despite pleas from the boy and his mother, a relative said.
Michigan authorities filed a first-degree murder charge Wednesday against Jamar Pinkney Sr. in the shooting death Monday of Jamar Pinkney Jr. in the Detroit enclave of Highland Park...
The boy's mother, Lazette Cherry, told the Detroit Free Press that her son told her he had improper sexual contact with the girl.
"I called and told his father. This isn't something you sweep under the rug," she said.
Cherry said the elder Pinkney arrived at the home with a gun, ordered his son to strip and marched him outside despite her protests.
"He got on his knees and begged, No, Daddy, No,' and he pulled the trigger," Cherry said.
I honestly don't know what I'd do if one of my kids turned out to be a child molester. I don't think that child molesters are ever curable (try changing your sexual orientation for a day-- you can't. Neither can they.) Likely as not the son faced a long, tough life behind bars, but it was not up to his father to take it upon himself to end it before that happened.
This is a case in which there are only victims.
7 comments:
The marbles don't add up here.
Even if he was really angry at his son and if he detested child molesters that's not a reason to take a gun, obviously intend all the way there to use it and then just plain murder his son.
We know that most child molesters first conceived of it because someone else molested them. I'm guessing that the son was molested at an earlier age, either by his father or by someone his father knew was doing it, and he murdered his son because he was afraid of what his son knew and who he might tell it to.
I hope I'm wrong about that, but that's the only way I can put the pieces together here that they make sense.
I hadn't thought about that, Jack.
But you do have a point here. Covering up a crime is a much more likely motive for murder than just being angry at your son, even for something like that.
I'm sure the police are considering your theory too, if they aren't they should.
Oh, and by the way what's that about marbles not adding up?
And I thought I was guilty of mixed metaphors.
He should have just pointed the gun barrel directly at the offending organ and made his son a eunuch.
No murder, and no child molester.
Not all pedophiles were themselves molested.
No doubt, had the boy continued to live he would have continued to abuse other children, all his life, at every chance he got.
I myself am conflicted about treatment for pedophiles. Death appears to be the only thing that really stops them. What a gruesome "treatment," if you can call it that.
Shrimplate,
Not all were. But I do think Jack's theory makes sense, otherwise it is hard to come up with a motive that justifies what is clearly a pre-meditated murder. At the very least the police should look into it.
Considering the horrendous case in Missouri which was just uncovered from the 1990's, I'd say this might be a family affair he wanted to keep quiet?
Or maybe he was just sickened by the revelation? Or maybe he worried about what might happen to his son in jail? Or what the son might do when he got back out of jail?
I agree, Eli. This was a tragedy with everyone being a victim. There should be free mental health services for those with these sorts of inclinations for the safety of everyone in the community.
Post a Comment