Should i post anything about MXS?

[ShadowFire]

Let me start by saying I'm not supporting Pacman, nor do I condone rape or sexual assualt. I'm simply going to point something out.

Lots of people plead "Guilty" to crimes they haven't committed.

Show me where he plead guilty?

Can you even appeal a guilty plea? "Oh I just remembered I'm not guilty, I would like to appeal."

A brief search through the posted documents and I found the jury verdict proclaiming him guilty. If you plead out you don't go before a jury.

[rabidchihauhau]

Only God can judge, in God's eyes everyone is given many chances.

Well, excuse me for being an atheist, but with that kind of an attitude, Hitler would be running Europe.

God, as you understand him/her/it, will be judging in the AFTERLIFE and is welcome to do so. I live in the real world and have no problem with mere mortals, properly elected or appointed, from taking on that role...

[rabidchihauhau]

Again, we DO NOT know the entire story. Being convicted of a crime does not mean you are 100% guilty of that crime. We don't know the entire story here. Im not defending him, simply saying how about we don't hang the guy without knowing ALL the facts. Hey, don't go play in the games if you don't want but find out ALL the facts.

According to the court records he was 100% GUILTY.

If you want to discuss whether he got a proper defense, or whether the court went overboard, or if there was a very bad case of mistaken identity, that's a different issue...

[Zapp Branigan]

Show me where he plead guilty?

Can you even appeal a guilty plea? "Oh I just remembered I'm not guilty, I would like to appeal."

A brief search through the posted documents and I found the jury verdict proclaiming him guilty. If you plead out you don't go before a jury.

Hence the wording

"VERDICT BY JURY (filed Jan 21, 1986) SENTENCING April 4th, 1986:
guilty of count II, forcible sodomy: sentenced to 5 years
guilty of count I, rape in the 1st degree: April 4, 20 years
guilty of count III, forcible sodomy: 5 years"


I never said Pacman plead out. I was merely pointing out there are plenty of not guilty people that are also ostrasized because of the way the system works.

I apologize for not spelling that out for you.

Also, yes. Even if you plead guilty in a case, most states (Including Texas) will allow you to appeal within 30 days.

And ALL states allow you to appeal a guilty verdict upon the discovery of new evidence.

Although I do find it odd that he was sentenced in 1986, but his appeal wasn't shot down until 1992.

[rabidchihauhau]

Well since this thread has grown I might as well weigh in with my thoughts.

First off, I've never been to a scenario game and have never heard of MXS. Sending anonymous letters and posting such personal information is just plain wrong. Especially when the crime took place back in 1985. I know criminal records are in the public domain, but come on, whatever happened to common courtesy?.

If it were "wrong" we'd never have learned about trhe Watergate break-in, and ten million other things that we're better off for having known.

You are making the mistake of forgetting about the message and focusing on the messenger/method of delivery.

[ShadowFire]

Also, yes. Even if you plead guilty in a case, most states (Including Texas) will allow you to appeal within 30 days.

Thanks for pointing that out. I will be the first to admit I don't know all the laws (even in my state).

It still seems like your entire 1st post was meant to misdirect. You included "I'm not saying this happened in this case" but the entire post dealt with people who plead guilty for some reason. That did not happen in this case, he plead not guilty and was found guilty by a jury. The fact that some "other" people plead guilty to avoid a lengthy trial (or whatever) has no bearing on this discussion.

[Thordic]

If it were "wrong" we'd never have learned about trhe Watergate break-in, and ten million other things that we're better off for having known.

You are making the mistake of forgetting about the message and focusing on the messenger/method of delivery.

Thats a terrible analogy.

This is something that was dealt with by our justice system, bringing it up now is just airing dirty laundry.

[rabidchihauhau]

best one I could think of at the time.

Tell me, do you think the abu ghraib pictures 'just happened' to show up one day?

The point is that FACTS have a way of showing up and very often the best defense against them is to attack the messenger.

We can focus at another time on the character, motives and likley sexual predilictions of the source - but for now, I'd prefer to discuss the facts that were revealed.

[Thordic]

Again, you are talking about two different things.

Bringing crimes to the attention of the proper authorities so they can be investigated is one thing. That would be Watergate, Abu Gharib, etc.

Bringing up past crimes where time has been served 20 years after the fact is ENTIRELY different.

Thats more like when your gf/wife constantly reminds you of everything you did wrong 5-10 years ago. But 100x worse.

[Nudi]

best one I could think of at the time.

Tell me, do you think the abu ghraib pictures 'just happened' to show up one day?

The point is that FACTS have a way of showing up and very often the best defense against them is to attack the messenger.

We can focus at another time on the character, motives and likley sexual predilictions of the source - but for now, I'd prefer to discuss the facts that were revealed.

This is a direct quote from my post over on PBN. (www.pbnation.com) I haven't posted here in a while...lol...but I follow it a lot.

I really don't care about the source. I care about the information. You want to discredit the information because it came from an anonymous source? If that is the case, then some of you might need to consider the fact that you can't see the forest for the trees.

This isn't about the source. It's about the fact that one Patrick McKinnon is a convicted rapist and sodomizer.

Why do I say that? For several reasons. (This is the start of why I feel this is important to scenario paintball)

Because this genre of the sport touts itself as being family friendly. This genre of the sport touts itself as being self-policing of it's members (for cheating, lying, stealing, etc). And most importantly, this genre of the sport has more WOMEN and CHILDREN in it than the other genres.

I'm in the health care field. I wrote several papers on abnormal psychology. One was on (suprise, suprise) rapists. My personal history with rape drove me to want to know more about the 'why' of it.

And the things I found out:

(1) Next to the incest child molesters, rapists were second most likely to sexually recidivate (become a repeat offender).
(2) across several studies, treated offenders sexually recidivated at a rate of 19%, whereas untreated offenders sexually recidivated at a rate of 27%
(3) In terms of treatment, research suggests that adequate treatment would need to address general crime issues as well as sexual crime issues, to ensure that rapists do not reoffend.
(4) In fact, it has been noted that "rapists share more characteristics with the general criminal population than do child molesters."
(5) Since rapists engage in a variety of criminal behaviors and have high recidivism rates, they are difficult to rehabilitate effectively.
(6)Sex offenders often victimize more than one person, and there are usually multiple victims before an offender is caught.

If anyone needs my 'sources' I'd be more than happy to let you have them.

Why is the above rhetoric important? Do you think there were aggressive sex offender programs in Oklahoma during this time?

Most studies point to the fact that treatment of sex offenders spans the person's lifetime. As there is no Patrick McKinnon registered as a sex offender in Texas (loopholes in Oklahoma and Texas laws), I'd say it's safe to assume there has been no long term treatment/follow up or even monitoring.

So, just for arguments sake, let's say one Patrick McKinnon is an untreated sex offender. 27% chance of repeating. Sorry, it's just not an acceptable risk to me.

And that's what it gets down to: Risk. I chose to err to the side of caution.

Now for this forum I add:

As a consumer, I have that right. The information is out there and the truth of the matter (since some of you seem to think this isn't the Patrick McKinnon of MXS fame) will reveal itself in it's time. You can chose to believe it or not, and when the truth comes out there will still be people who refuse to believe. You can chose to support them or not. It's your right as well.

I just don't want to give my money to a KNOWN convicted rapist and sodomizer. And before you go there, I probably give my money to people all the time who are convicted felons. But I also know where every sex offender lives within a 100 mile radius...I chose to not support them either.

See, it's not that every woman in TB's life has been raped. Just the important ones...

His mother. His wife. And his best friend: me.

Judge me. I don't care. I have the right to stand up for what I believe in and fight against that I do not.

[rabidchihauhau]

Again, you are talking about two different things.

Bringing crimes to the attention of the proper authorities so they can be investigated is one thing. That would be Watergate, Abu Gharib, etc.

Bringing up past crimes where time has been served 20 years after the fact is ENTIRELY different.

Thats more like when your gf/wife constantly reminds you of everything you did wrong 5-10 years ago. But 100x worse.

Ok, forget the analogies.

I believe that sometimes 'ratting' can be a good thing, if the information disclosed is of actual benefit. I can think of all kinds of circumstances in which anonymity is legitimate in such circumstances and an equal number of situations in which the information is of past actions but might have a bearing on the future.

Actually, don't forget analogies, here's a paintball example:

You know that so-and-so and his team regularly practice cheating techniques because you used to be on the team. You left because you're an honorable player. Now you're at an event and so-and-so's team is attending. You go to the head referee and rat them out. They haven't done anything. All of their "crimes" are in the past. Your information is heresay and probably emotionally biased.

You know what? I may think you're a rat, but as the head referee, I appreciate hearing about it. Now I'll watch those guys a little more closely. If you were to give me better detail, I'd watch for those specific things also. Will I penalize them for things they haven't done or things they've done in the past? No. They'll get the same treatment as every other team at the event. But you can be damned sure that they won't get away with any of their usual tricks should they decide to try and maybe, just maybe, the fact that they've been ratted out will cause them to behave a little better.

In regards to the specific case - thank goodness it was a paintballer doing the ratting in a paintball setting. Now we know. Can you imagine the mainstream press getting ahold of this? I don't care on what pretext as in and of itself the old crime is not news, but give the press red meat and they'll find a way to eat it.

[ViperScenarios]

The Dru Sjodin National Sex Offender Public Registry

http://www.nsopr.gov

http://www2.ucsc.edu/rape-prevention/statistics.html

* In a study of 6,000 students at 32 colleges in the US, 1 in 4 women had been the victims of rape or attempted rape. (Warshaw 1994)

* In a study of 6,000 students at 32 colleges in the US, 42% of rape victims told no-one and only 5% reported it to the police. (Warshaw 1994)

That's nearly half of all rape victims that don't tell anyone that it happened. How do you know that the female teammate, or player you are sharing the bunker with, hasn't been victimized? According to statistics 1 in 4 women on the field have been. Now...the question is...by whom? Anyone you know?

I'd say that there is just cause for concern by responsible people...

[Dark Side]

[I]

See, it's not that every woman in TB's life has been raped. Just the important ones...

His mother. His wife. And his best friend: me.

Judge me. I don't care. I have the right to stand up for what I believe in and fight against that I do not.

That raises an eyebrow. Was he the one that hurt you?

[ViperScenarios]

Deleted

[ViperScenarios]

As is this one.