Father shoots his son.

I saw this a couple weeks ago. This dude is old school. :D I think he should be commended for doing what needed to be done.

Source (http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2009/11/father-accused-of-killing-son-for-sexual-contact-with-sister-/1)

Outside Detroit today, a 37-year-old father was denied bond for allegedly killing his naked son execution style after hearing that the 15-year-old had sexual contact with his 3-year-old half-sister.

Jamar Pinkney Sr., a postal carrier, was charged with first-degree murder after the execution-style shooting Monday of Jamar Jr. Police said that after the boy's mother called her ex-husband to tell him what had happened, he came to her home in Highland Park and began beating the boy. Pinkney then stripped him naked, marched him outside and shot him in the head.

"He got on his knees and begged, 'No, Daddy! No!' and he pulled the trigger," his mother, Lazette Cherry, told the Detroit Free Press (http://www.freep.com/article/20091118/NEWS01/91118026/1320/Dad-arraigned-in-sons-execution-killing). "There wasn't nothing that my son wouldn't do for his father. He loved his father so much.

"There's no justification for what he did, you know, downright shoot your child," she said. "He didn't rape her or anything. So why did you have to come and take matters into your hands? We said we were going to get him help."

A fund has been set up at the Charter One Bank branch in Highland Park to help the family with burial expenses.

Defense attorney Corbett O'Meara said prosecutors should consider the father's state of mind over the sex abuse report.

"If something were to happen that would cause a reasonable person to lose control of himself, that is something the prosecution would have to take into account," O'Meara said outside court.
Pinkney is due back in court Dec. 1.
(Posted by Michael Winter)

As a parent, I find this to be a disturbing event.

A father's role is to teach his kids right from wrong, and to provide guidance. Any decent man and father can guide and discipline his kids without beating or shooting them.
Nothing the son could have ever done deserved this outcome.

And to point out the obvious...... was he trying to protect the daughter? Well, daddy sure as hell cannot protect her now, since he will be in jail :(

I really don't see a problem with it. People can't change what turns them on sexually. You can't make a straight person gay, a gay person straight, or a normal person get turned on by kids.... nor can you make someone like this stop liking kids. If you like kids... you're broke. Plan and simple, there's no way to fix you, and you have no place in society.

I really don't see a problem with it. People can't change what turns them on sexually. You can't make a straight person gay, a gay person straight, or a normal person get turned on by kids.... nor can you make someone like this stop liking kids. If you like kids... you're broke. Plan and simple, there's no way to fix you, and you have no place in society.
Sure, life-long pedophiles are reprehensible. But we do not know if the kid would turn out to be one of those.

I would have little problem with the dad shooting an adult convicted pedophile who was diddling the girl.

What if this kid was simply curious and had been watching way too much internet porn. He may have just gotten the girl to pull his winkey :puke: because he's a goof and was tired of pulling it himself?That would mean he's an idiot, but not a pedophile. Teenage boys do stupid stuff all the time, but usually grow up to be okay.

Even if the son would have turned out bad, the dad's actions were overkill :) and have wrecked his life and his family.

I really don't see a problem with it. People can't change what turns them on sexually. You can't make a straight person gay, a gay person straight, or a normal person get turned on by kids.... nor can you make someone like this stop liking kids. If you like kids... you're broke. Plan and simple, there's no way to fix you, and you have no place in society.

so, what you are saying is that if a child is curious about why a girl is different from a boy, and tries to find out by looking, he (or she) should be physically abused then publically humiliated then shot? Good grief. That is a little scary. There's something that is not right about a Father shooting his son, (or stepson). I agree with MagicRat. A parent is there to teach not kill their kids. I might not have any kids of my own, but I do have 18 neices and nephews who are all younger than me. Do they make mistakes? Oh hell yeah they do, all the time. Does that mean they should be shot? Hell NO! That man, if you can even consider him to be a man, will have a LONG time to think about how he has screwed up the relationship with his daughter. I guarantee she is going to ask one day why her daddy isn't around. She will know the truth sooner or later, and when she does, well it could be pretty bad for 'ol over protective dad. A feel bad for his mental stability and his poor daughter who will live her life without her dad or brother.

so, what you are saying is that if a child is curious about why a girl is different from a boy, and tries to find out by looking, he (or she) should be physically abused then publically humiliated then shot? Good grief.
That's not what I said at all. If you want to debate someone... do it about what they said. Don't make up a bunch of bullshit to respond to.

There's something that is not right about a Father shooting his son, (or stepson). I agree with MagicRat. A parent is there to teach not kill their kids. I might not have any kids of my own, but I do have 18 neices and nephews who are all younger than me. Do they make mistakes? Oh hell yeah they do, all the time. Does that mean they should be shot? Hell NO! That man, if you can even consider him to be a man, will have a LONG time to think about how he has screwed up the relationship with his daughter. I guarantee she is going to ask one day why her daddy isn't around. She will know the truth sooner or later, and when she does, well it could be pretty bad for 'ol over protective dad. A feel bad for his mental stability and his poor daughter who will live her life without her dad or brother.
So, what you are saying is that you like molesting your nieces and nephews, and you're afraid that someone will kill you if this practice were to catch on? Good Grief. You're sick.

That's not what I said at all. If you want to debate someone... do it about what they said. Don't make up a bunch of bullshit to respond to.

you said that you agreed with this guy and that he should be commended. If you read the complete story, then you will see that by saying you agree with him, you are agreeing to what he did. You did not specify what you agreed to and what you didn't agree to.


So, what you are saying is that you like molesting your nieces and nephews, and you're afraid that someone will kill you if this practice were to catch on? Good Grief. You're sick.

That there is making stuff up. Did I say that anywhere at all? no. who's making stuff up now?

you said that you agreed with this guy and that he should be commended. If you read the complete story, then you will see that by saying you agree with him, you are agreeing to what he did. You did not specify what you agreed to and what you didn't agree to.
If you bothered to read my post that you quoted, I made it very clear. No where was it said in the article or my posts that it was two kids curiously taking a peek at each other. It was a 15 year old having "Sexual Contact" with a 3 year old. How in the world can you defend that?



That there is making stuff up. Did I say that anywhere at all? no. who's making stuff up now?
:shakehead That was the point. It was an example of what you did.

If you bothered to read my post that you quoted, I made it very clear. No where was it said in the article or my posts that it was two kids curiously taking a peek at each other. It was a 15 year old having "Sexual Contact" with a 3 year old. How in the world can you defend that?




:shakehead That was the point. It was an example of what you did.

lol. thats funny. sorry, I'm kind of busy so I didn't catch that last part. You got me there. But I don't think I was to far off point. i was not, in any way, defending the boys actions. what he did was very wrong and deserved discipline and a good talking to. that doesn't deserve a death penalty though. HOWEVER, I don't agree with what the boys father did. That was what I was debating. His father was VERY wrong.

Jamar Pinkney Sr., a postal carrierBeen awhile since we heard of anyone "Going Postal"! I guess this kind of behavior goes with the trade. IMHO, the judgment should mirrow the offense!

15 is old enough to know better! Where were the parents during his raising? The father was probably working his ass off to pay the bills, what was momma doing? What was daddy trying to hide himself? Did the boy ever have any kind of father son talk about life with him?

My boy was 3 when he assocated his tally wacker with a dogs tail. My husband had a talk with him about it, and cleared it up.

The list goes on and on, so many questions ect. Things that should have been allready explained with the boy. Why shoot him? The father and mother have as much to blame as the boy does.

If the baby Girl was 3, she should have been potty trained, so that puts tha changing the diaper sanerio out. Or was she?

This makes me sick!!!





The boy did not even fight for his life!!!!!! He begged a bit....What was said that made the father think he did such a thing? What is the real story???? Catch 22

The article said, "sexual contact". Pretty wide interpretations can be made from that.

On the father's side, maybe this sort of thing had happened before, and was pretty bad and the kid had been warned.

On the kid's side, maybe he had been asked to change a diaper and had taken a bit more of a peek than he really needed to.

Fact is, we just don't know what actually happened. But it's tragic that the kid died. Maybe he deserved it and a mass murderer was taken off the streets. Maybe he didn't, and died unfairly.

But there's a line that shouldn't be crossed - and I agree that a 15 year old should have known where that line was.

The article said, "sexual contact". Pretty wide interpretations can be made from that.

On the father's side, maybe this sort of thing had happened before, and was pretty bad and the kid had been warned.

On the kid's side, maybe he had been asked to change a diaper and had taken a bit more of a peek than he really needed to.

Fact is, we just don't know what actually happened. But it's tragic that the kid died. Maybe he deserved it and a mass murderer was taken off the streets. Maybe he didn't, and died unfairly.

But there's a line that shouldn't be crossed - and I agree that a 15 year old should have known where that line was.

The Dad should've known where his line was aswell.....

The Dad should've known where his line was aswell.....

You're 100% right.