William Lynch Found Not Guilty in Beating of Priest He Said Sexually Abused Him


#1

William Lynch, the 44-year-old California man who admitted he pummeled a Jesuit priest who he said abused him as a boy, has been found not guilty of felony assault and elder abuse charges.

The jury of nine men and three women could not reach a verdict on a lesser charge of misdemeanor assault for the 2010 attack at a retirement home, deadlocking 8-4 to convict him.

Lynch could have faced four years in jail if convicted on all the charges.

news.yahoo.com/william-lynch-found-not-guilty-beating-priest-said-202746328–abc-news-topstories.html

A tragic miscarriage of justice. What were they thinking?


#2

As a Catholic priest, he was automatically guilty until (not)proven innocent. The persecution is coming folks, but so is Our Lord. May we stand strong and courageous. Mary, mother of God and the church, pray for us!


#3

So now vigilantism is legal and morally acceptable to the jury? Forget the fact that it was a priest, or an abuse victim. How can this be acceptable from any point of view, except to get pure revenge?


#4

He may not have done time in prison but if he does not repent for his vicious attack and any other sins he may acquire in life than he will surely pay for it in the next life.


#5

Then let us pray and hope he does repent.


#6

Anti-Catholic double standards are the trend these days. :mad:


#7

Now from a Catholic POV what if the Priest did abuse him?


#8

[quote="HappyPagan, post:7, topic:290517"]
Now from a Catholic POV what if the Priest did abuse him?

[/quote]

Let's put it this way.
One cannot right a wrong with another wrong. I understand the reasons why he could have done so, but it is hardly the best solution for the problem.


#9

If true, I don’t really blame the guy.

I suspect that if this victim were just plain ol’ Joe, folks around here would be singing a different tune.


#10

If the attacker is a Catholic, he needs only got to Confession to obtain absolution. No big deal.


#11

The jury may have thought Lynch was justified in attacking the priest.

One juror said the description in court of the rape that Lynch said the priest committed had “tremendous play” in the panel’s decision.

“We all agreed that it was a heinous act,” said the juror, who asked to not be named. “It was a tough thing to disregard.”

He said he had been among the eight voting for conviction on the misdemeanor assault count, but only because he felt he had to follow legal limitations, “and the defendant admitted hitting the victim.”

sfgate.com/crime/article/Alleged-rape-victim-acquitted-in-priest-assault-3686581.php


#12

If that was the case, it is vigilantism. Lynch was not in immediate danger, in fact he sought out his victim. As a civilized society, we are not supposed to condone people taking justice into their own hands.


#13

More evidence that the jury may have decided that Lynch was entitled to attack the priest

In a sign earlier this week that at least some members of the jury were leaning toward acquittal, the panel took the highly unusual step of asking the judge for the definition of nullification, which is when a jury acquits a defendant despite evidence of guilt because it believes a conviction would be unjust.

The question initially stunned the judge and lawyers, who argued over how to respond. Over the vehement objections of Lynch’s lawyers, the judge ended up telling the jury today they had to obey his instrutions to follow the law, and deliberations continued. At that point, the defense braced for a conviction, said Paul A. Mones, one of Lynch’s attorneys.

Defense lawyers in California can’t directly urge the jury to nullify, But during closing arguments Harris had managed to get his message across.

"There is a defense to that “overzealous” decision by the prosecution, Harris had said – “you,” looking at the jurors.

mercurynews.com/lynch/ci_21013723/will-lynch-found-not-guilty-beating-priest


#14

Attacking a priest is sacrilege, either way


#15

Only with contrition
Someone this cosumed by vengeance probably has a way to go. Both the priest and Mr Lynch need our prayers…


#16

sacrilege against the wicked. Let me catch a priest doing such things to my or any other kid and he would see some sacrilege. :mad:

All molesters are monsters but a priest abusing his holy office is just. . . . something special. . . . something in need of special attention.


#17

Two crimes do not make a right; nor do they make a man not guilty of committing a crime.

You can’t go around beating up people for what they did to you 20 years ago, no matter how terrible.

The Jury simply ignored the law and acquitted William Lynch.


#18

A Man for All Seasons (Saint Thomas More)
youtube.com/watch?v=A-nJR15e0F4


#19

That’s not the jury’s job. The jury’s job is to determine if the law was broken, beyond the threshold of a reasonable doubt. If they can prove that it was, then they must convict.

If the Jesuit priest abused the man as a boy, that should have gone to court at that time. If the boy was abused, It was a miscarriage of justice if it did not.

The problem is that the Church was able to stone-wall the system before 2002. That has upset a lot of people. The people who were involved in stone-walling the system should have known better. These things do have huge and very negative social consequences. Perhaps they thought they could continue the way they had forever? I don’t know. I’m not sure what they thought might happen. It’s been one of the Church’s biggest DUH moments in recent history.


#20

This is completely true.

But you also can’t go around molesting kids indefinitely, thinking you’ll get away with it forever, either.

2 wrongs don’t make a right. 1 wrong and 1 right don’t make a right. It’s a messed up situation.

Best idea: Clean up the Church, get our act together and then be model citizens and live this down. Whining doesn’t help.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.