Thursday, April 12, 2007

Fry Him

Who's smiling now?

In North Carolina today, the state Attorney General has done about as much as he could to vindicate the three Duke Lacrosse players falsely accused of rape, declaring them innocent, discrediting the accuser's highly contradictory testimony, pointing out the glaring lack of DNA evidence and corroboration, and taking Durham Prosecutor Mike Nifong (shown above) -- the author of this travesty -- out to the woodshed as a "rogue prosecutor." Nifong, unsurprisingly, wasn't available for comment.

Nifong's troubles are just beginning. He faces disbarment, civil suits and -- justly -- disgrace.

The families he assaulted, legally, and whose savings were drained by legal fees, are contemplating legal action against him -- and the city, county and state, who empowered him to act. That is just. The power of the almighty State is terrifying. Such abuse of power demands severe sanction.

18 comments:

Victor said...

After feeling uncomfortable about the Anna Nicole thread, it feel so much better to be agreeing with you again, Padre.

I assume "fry" is hyperbole, but jail time would not be out of line for this PC race- sex- and class-baiting rogue.

shelray said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
shelray said...

The most shocking thing about the incident was how in the world he thought he would get away with this?

Puff the Magic Dragon said...

I thought fricasse might be better. While we are contemplating punishment, let's not forget forgiveness, if he repents.

Paulh7436 said...

Thanks for your comments, Father. Please don't exclude Duke University from those who should be held responsible. Eighty-eight faculty members signed a newspaper ad that in effect tossed "presumed innocent" out the window. I hope your use of "Fry" referred to rendering to Ceaser what is Ceaser's (justice system) and to God what is God's (forgiveness after repenting).

beez said...

Ouch!

Frankly, assuming that Victor is correct in his interpretation of the word "Fry," I am completely onboard with you.

Mike Nifong destroyed three innocent boys' lives in order to further his political career. As I think of those three boys and their parents, the words of Reagan Labor Secretary Ray Donovan come to mind:

"Where do I go to get my reputation back?"

Fortunately for these boys, this story was so botched from the very beginning that they have had defenders on their side -- people have heard both sides of the story and the final vindication was public.

How many young men have been accused of this crime, innocently, to see their faces and names splashed on the cover of the paper, only to have the story buried on page C-42 when they are acquitted?

We need some equity in the treatment of both criminals and victims, to ensure that, at the very least, an innocent person doesn't lose his entire life while a malicious accuser or prosecutor walks away scot free.

Biblioassistant said...

Father, Duke University fired the coach flat out. There were 88 at the least professors who jumped on the "they are guilty" bandwangon immediately. The University didn't give the players one scrap of support. There is no way in the universe I'd send a member of my family there.

Tom S. said...

Yes!!!!

A prosecutor in our criminal justice system personally and intenionally ruining the lives of three innocent men is something that CAN NEVER be tolerated in a civilized society.

Not to mention the angst caused in the community (and this is nearly a local event for me, being just 50 miles east of here), or the taxpayer money that was wasted on a case that was CLEARLY KNOWN to be false from the very beginning.

Fry him, indeed!!!

Tracy said...

This was just a political stunt for Nifong. I wonder how one gets to the point that squashing other ppl on the quest to the top becomes ok in their minds.

This whole situation has brought a TON of discredit to Duke, who has proven that their progrmas and pc'ness are more important than their people.

Living just an hour from there, I am, quite frankly, tired of hearing about it on the news. It's as if that's all that has happened in the world for the past year. Now we'll have endure all of the reports on the "Nifong Frying". If a bystander is tired of it, I can't imagine the pure hell those boys and their families have been through.

I pray for all involved here, especially the boys as they try to rebuild their lives.

In other news, I wonder what would happen to the "war on terror" if they gave our fallen soldiers, seamen, marines and airmen and the families they have left behind the same media attention that three college boys have received. THAT is the ultimate sacrifice. At least these boys have a second chance.

Anonymous said...

I would, in the boys shoes, sue the living (explative deleted) out of the 88 faculty members, and the university for defamation of character.

If i were the coach, i would sue for wrongful dismissal and defamation.

I used to live in the Triangle, and such PCness is unsuprizing--after all, it's where I heard students at NC State call for outlawing and executing christians, in 1990.

Mitch S.

Anonymous said...

(1) Nifong's acts are inexcusable and utterly reproachable. He should receive the harshest of punishments. (2) Duke U's 88 professors rushing to P.C. judgment is inexcusable. Let the public distain them. (3) These boys innocent of rape, are not choirboys. They engaged in some evil, unseemly and sinful behavior and the price that they and their family's paid in dollars is simply the temporal price for choosing to hire strippers, send racist and violent messages about rape, and so on. Their completely LEGAL acts reduced this woman to an object, which is a grave sin that they paid for in legal fees.

100% Innocent legally. 100% Guilty as well. The players should count their blessings that they only paid with their parent’s money and not their freedom. The root cause of this is not an overzealous D.A., the root cause of this is the morally bankrupt formation of these young men. For this deficient formation, the responsibility falls first to the parents, who because they failed to teach common moral behavior (like not hiring strippers for entertainment). No doubt they came from “good homes”. The parents paid “tuition” to another to teach their children a basic moral precept.

No one is innocent here, Father. Although I agree no crime was committed. The D.A. is a creepy bum, the students a disgrace to Duke U and their families, the professors similarly a disgrace. A secularist would call the act of the D.A. an injustice. I call it the temporal punishment due to sin.

Dan Kane

Anonymous said...

My husband and I are Catholic. Most of our children are grown and out of the house. Currently, we pay tuition to an Ivy League university for one of our children.That child was raised Catholic.If he did attend an event in which strippers were present, I probably wouldn't know. My point being, we send our child to college for an education, not faith education.He is an adult. If morals haven't been (mostly) established at this point, I can't blame the school. My point being, Dan Kane, do you really know the background of these young men? You lay partial blame to the parents. Do you know them personally? Do you know anything in how these boys were raised? I don't. These young men may have fallen morally, but they did nothing legally wrong.The young woman involved also acted immorally. Why isn't her name and picture being splashed everywhere?Didn't she, in fact, actually commit a crime? Isn't bringing up false charges and accusing someone of rape a crime?

Victor said...

Except that hiring a stripper or sending vulgar e-mails (or more precisely ... being a member of a group that does that) is not punishable by 30 years in prison or $3 million in fines (the amount of the families' legal fees).

There are good and objective reasons for that.

Anonymous said...

The parents neglected to ensure that common moral values were instilled in their sons. The acts and emails speak for themselves.

They preyed on another person, using her as an object for entertainment. But what happened was that they became the prey. Hence the outrage.

Crystal Gail Mangum, the stripper, if your goggle her name has 40,000+ hits. She preyed on the boys by falsely accusing them, probably for financial gain, the D.A. preyed on them for political gain, 88 professors preyed on them to look P.C. good, Sharpton and Jackson preyed on them to further their agendas and so on.

But the root cause of this tawdry affair is that the "Duke Boys" though that hiring a stripper is OK. After all, boys will be boys, right? Women are objects, right? By treating her as an object, they became objects themselves.

Parents, being the primary educators of children, were held responsible in the temporal realm. They footed the million dollar legal bill to teach their sons right from wrong. They sent these kids to Duke with incomplete moral formation (despite probably their best efforts). One may think that the purpose of Duke is education but Duke thinks that it purpose is to form young people into the image and likeness of adults consistent with Duke’s vision.

The environment at Duke, especially on the lacrosse team was well known. This is far from an isolated event. They placed their kids there and their kids reacted consistent with their formation.

So, no one is innocent here. Just no secular law was broken. The root cause of this event was the Duke Boys taste in entertainment and to a lesser but still relevant extent, those who funded that entertainment presuming that the Duke Boys were unemployed.

Dan Kane

Victor said...

But the root cause of this tawdry affair is that the "Duke Boys" though that hiring a stripper is OK.

So the "root cause" of another tawdry affair is that the Scottsboro Boys thought fighting on trains is OK.

Got it.


Parents, being the primary educators of children, were held responsible in the temporal realm. They footed the million dollar legal bill to teach their sons right from wrong.

Geez ... I wonder how much you think my parents should have had to have paid to teach me that wanking is wrong.

This was a LEGAL charge brought by Nifong. Moral issues per se are secondary. And if with respect to them, the district attorney has no business doing moral formation on anybody, much less a right to abuse the law to do so.


Duke thinks that it purpose is to form young people into the image and likeness of adults consistent with Duke’s vision.

"The Duke Vision" is one that has absolutely nothing to do with the Catholic faith and everything to do with liberal hedonism. Which is the "root cause" of quite a lot.


The environment at Duke, especially on the lacrosse team was well known.

Especially since it was exposed to the world by those 88 faculty members, by Houston Baker and the critical-race-theorists and those Duke students "outraged that legal rights are used to quiet this issue."

Stephen said...

I agree that Mr. Nifong has done wrong. But I am still disconcerted with his picture and the words "Fry Him" appearing on a Catholic blog written by priest. Just don't like the tone of vengeance that comes from this terse command from Father Fox.

Father Martin Fox said...

Stephen:

LOL -- I was waiting for that!

I knew someone was going to chastise me.

It should be manifest that I meant "fry" metaphorically -- i.e., he should be held accountable, and he should pay a steep price.

And that is not "vengeance" -- it's justice.

Kat said...

FYI;

I saw that you were nominated for the bloggers choice awards for best religon blog