Larry Nassar gets 175 years.....

ddt said:
Please explain exactly what the noun phrase "sister survivors" means in this sentence, and to whom each of those two nouns refer. Start with the noun "sister".
Click to expand...
Dance, monkey! Dance!

No. I will not dance for you.

Tell me: Whenever you talk about sisters, are you claiming sisterhood with them?
 
theprestige said:
Dance, monkey! Dance!

No. I will not dance for you.
Click to expand...
So you cannot explain to me why "survivors" does not also refer to the judge herself? Got it.

theprestige said:
Tell me: Whenever you talk about sisters, are you claiming sisterhood with them?
Click to expand...
Yes; both words "sister" and "sisterhood" can be used literally (a female sibling) as well as figuratively (a bond based on some commonality).

And irrespective of the "survivor" part, the "sister" part goes too far. The judge in a criminal case is there to judge on the severity of the crimes, not to identify with the victims.
 
ddt said:
So you cannot explain to me why "survivors" does not also refer to the judge herself? Got it.


Yes; both words "sister" and "sisterhood" can be used literally (a female sibling) as well as figuratively (a bond based on some commonality).

And irrespective of the "survivor" part, the "sister" part goes too far. The judge in a criminal case is there to judge on the severity of the crimes, not to identify with the victims.
Click to expand...
Edited by Agatha: 
Edited to remove breach of rule 0 and rule 12
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ddt said:
So you cannot explain to me why "survivors" does not also refer to the judge herself? Got it.


Yes; both words "sister" and "sisterhood" can be used literally (a female sibling) as well as figuratively (a bond based on some commonality).

And irrespective of the "survivor" part, the "sister" part goes too far. The judge in a criminal case is there to judge on the severity of the crimes, not to identify with the victims.
Click to expand...
Surely I can talk about two who share a bond, without implying I am a third who shares the same bond.
 
Checkmite said:
The father has been released, after being made to apologize. To the court, that is, not Nassar.
Click to expand...

I'm actually surprised this doesn't happen more often. I don't have children, but I have a niece and nephew. They are adults now, but if someone hurt them when they were young, I honestly don't know what I would do.

Hell, I said they are adults now, but I don't feel that much different.
 
TheGoldcountry said:
I'm actually surprised this doesn't happen more often. I don't have children, but I have a niece and nephew. They are adults now, but if someone hurt them when they were young, I honestly don't know what I would do.

Hell, I said they are adults now, but I don't feel that much different.
Click to expand...

I have never been in this Dad's situation, and while I cannot feel his pain, I can understand it. If I had ever found out someone had molested my kids, that person would have needed to hope and pray that the Police got to them before I did.

Same applies to my grandchildren.
 
ddt said:
So you cannot explain to me why "survivors" does not also refer to the judge herself? Got it.

Yes; both words "sister" and "sisterhood" can be used literally (a female sibling) as well as figuratively (a bond based on some commonality).

And irrespective of the "survivor" part, the "sister" part goes too far. The judge in a criminal case is there to judge on the severity of the crimes, not to identify with the victims.
Click to expand...

In the context in which the words were used, a male judge could have said exactly the same thing about the victims, and obviously he wouldn't be including himself as either a sister or a victim.
 
When it comes to what the dad did in court, I agree with what the judge did. Put him in cuffs. Take him out of there, but don't charge him. He's angry. He did something stupid. The judge has to stop it, but he gets a pass because, in the end, no harm was done. He didn't manage to cause any injury except to himself.

But.....

Just exactly what is he angry about? He had three daughters abused by Larry Nassar. Well, that's something to be angry about. And yet, I know that lots and lots of people knew exactly what Larry Nassar was doing. They just didn't know he was enjoying it. Was this dad one of the ones that knew? If not, how do you have three different daughters go to a sports physician, and you not know what treatment they got? Remember that Nassar did his abuse under the guise of treatment.

And this is a guy who, quite literally, asked the judge for permission to beat someone up, and, when denied permission, took it upon himself to attempt the action anyway.

I just have to believe that this is exactly the sort of dad I was talking about when talking about the weird culture of gymnastics. He had three daughters who were at a high end gym. At least, that's what I assume, because they were in contact with Larry Nassar. Each of them was being treated for some sort of injury, or was it training/physical therapy? Whatever it was, it's not really normal.

And then there's the courtroom outburst. Larry Nassar will spend the rest of his life in jail. However, that's not good enough for this guy. He has to deliver the vengeance personally. Isn't that kind of narcissistic? This wasn't a spontaneous outburst. He actually had to ask the judge for permission. I might fantasize about how I would just love to say this or that to so and so, but to actually do it? To actually ask the judge for permission to beat up someone? To ask twice?

I wouldn't throw the guy in jail, but this is not a nice man. I just have to wonder what it was like to live in that guy's house.
 
The fact that "understandable" and "forgivable" aren't exact synonyms is the whole reason we have a formalized criminal justice system instead of vigilante justice or "Pistols at noon."

We, I think, sometimes get a little too hung up on the "I could see myself doing the same thing..." train of thought.

The fact that we could see ourselves reacting the same way given the same situation doesn't, or at least shouldn't, lead to "Therefore that thing shouldn't be a crime."
 
Meadmaker said:
When it comes to what the dad did in court, I agree with what the judge did. Put him in cuffs. Take him out of there, but don't charge him. He's angry. He did something stupid. The judge has to stop it, but he gets a pass because, in the end, no harm was done. He didn't manage to cause any injury except to himself.
Click to expand...

I disagree, I think he should have been charged. While I can understand his anger, his request was utterly ridiculous, almost in itself contempt of court. Letting him walk after attempting to attack the defendant is not sending a very strong signal, and someone else may be encouraged to do the same thing. I'm pretty sure in the UK he would have been charged; is the fact that the judge likely to be elected rather than appointed a factor in this?
 
zooterkin said:
....
'm pretty sure in the UK he would have been charged; is the fact that the judge likely to be elected rather than appointed a factor in this?
Click to expand...

She's elected. But, interestingly, she apparently has a history of supporting "problem-solving" alternative sentencing programs, including drug courts. She seems well-respected by her peers.
https://www.eatoncounty.org/courts/circuit-court

I don't know if dad needed to be formally charged. Just holding him in a cell for a few hours might have made the point. I wonder if the fact that the doc is a mousy little worm encouraged dad's display? If the defendant had been a six-foot seven biker thug with his buddies in the gallery, I'll bet dad would have been able to restrain himself.
 
Meadmaker said:
Just exactly what is he angry about? He had three daughters abused by Larry Nassar. Well, that's something to be angry about. And yet, I know that lots and lots of people knew exactly what Larry Nassar was doing. They just didn't know he was enjoying it. Was this dad one of the ones that knew? If not, how do you have three different daughters go to a sports physician, and you not know what treatment they got? Remember that Nassar did his abuse under the guise of treatment.
Click to expand...

Well no - they didn't know exactly what he was doing; they took Nassar's word for what he was doing. They did not know he was digitally penetrating the patients. The victims of course knew, but when they tried to tell other adults, evidently Nassar gave an excuse about a coccyx manipulation that required his hands to be near there, but insisted that it was only near, implying that the girls were exaggerating or making up stories about "how" near just because it was an awkward and physically uncomfortable technique and they wanted to get out of having to do it. And because of the confidence of his "explanation" and the fact that he was a Well Respected Olympic Doctor with decades of tenure, along with the fact that the technique he was using as an excuse was a real technique (I think it's called a "sacral ligament release" or something like that), they took his word over the girls - they're only children after all, what do they know about medical techniques? - and so the victims were effectively gaslighted by both Nassar himself and any adults he fast-talked onto his side.
 
Meadmaker said:
.this is not a nice man. I just have to wonder what it was like to live in that guy's house.
Click to expand...

You are trying to reach conclusions about this family's home life based on the observation that the father wanted to beat the crap out of a scumbag who molested his three daughters and 262 other young women.

That's a long bow you are drawing there, and you have zero evidence with which to draw it.
 
smartcooky said:
You are trying to reach conclusions about this family's home life based on the observation that the father wanted to beat the crap out of a scumbag who molested his three daughters and 262 other young women.

That's a long bow you are drawing there, and you have zero evidence with which to draw it.
Click to expand...
Except for the evidence that he was willing to take a violent, stinky **** on the law in open court, yeah, there's nothing to see here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom