Alabama Man Indicted for Murder, Sodomy of His Daughter, 8

Posted on Comments

 

Hiawatha Robinson, 38, had three previous felony convictions — for burglary, receiving stolen property and possession of marijuana — as well as a conviction for misdemeanor domestic violence. Despite his extensive criminal record, however, Robinson was not in jail when police say he killed his daughter during a sexual assault:

Hiawayi Robinson’s father, Hiawatha, has been indicted for murder and sodomy in her death, WKRG reports.
The 8-year-old girl’s body was found in September 2014 in Prichard. She was lying on her back and the lower part of her body was naked.
Three months later, Hiawatha Robinson was charged with her death, and the Mobile County District Attorney’s Office believes Hiawayi died during a sexual assault. He is being held on a $500,000 bail at Mobile County Metro Jail. . . .
In May, Hiawatha was sentenced to 30 months in a federal prison on the gun charge after he pleaded guilty to one count of possession of a firearm by a prohibited person.

Meanwhile, the decadent liberal editors at Salon.com have published a story by a self-described pedophile who says he’s not a bad guy and wants everybody to pity him for his “sexual orientation.”

 

136 comments

  4. Gee. Pot-smokers keep telling me that the whole world would be peaceful if everyone would just get high all the time.

    The weed didn’t seem to mellow that guy out, now, did it?

  6. Our esteemed host wrote:

    Meanwhile, the decadent liberal editors at Salon.com have published a story by a self-described pedophile who says he’s not a bad guy and wants everybody to pity him for his “sexual orientation.”

    And I do. If what he says is true, that, despite his sexual desires, he has never molested or attempted to molest a child, then of course I have sympathy for him; is that not how we say pedophiles should behave?

  7. Meanwhile, the decadent liberal editors at Salon.com have published a story by a self-described pedophile who says he’s not a bad guy and wants everybody to pity him for his “sexual orientation.”

    That’s the logic of the sexual ethic that has been advanced the last six decades by deviants, by the mental health and social work trade, by the media, by the legal profession, by academe, and by suborned clergymen. Each of these components has played its role, and, for the upcoming revision, the mental health trade will provide one set of specious arguments and the legal profession the other. Memo to the Republican caucus leadership in every legislature in the country: if were to quit letting lawyers and shrinks push us around, one crucial component of same is for you and your confederates to take their toys away from them.

    It will not, however, be a consistent and thorough revision. The gay lobby wants to get their hands on teenage boys. They do not care about pre-pubescent children or the oddballs turned on by them and find the whole area a minefield best avoided. People skilled in advertising, public relations, and public display know how to do just that from one angle. Their lawyers will figure out the sophistries will get the job done from the other angle (with help from clinicians). My bet would be that pederasty will be rendered lawful in the same manner that traffick in pornography was: public prosecutors will simply refuse to bring cases and trial judges will grasp at any excuse to dismiss them.

  8. Well, yeah, not raping children is how we say all people should behave, pedophiles included.

    I do not agree that somebody deserves sympathy or pity because he has restrained himself from raping children, or from raping anybody. That’s one of the lowest possible standards of decency out there.

  9. A heroin addict who never takes heroin. I’m sure that’s really common. Salon itself is a dark alley, so I’m not surprised they’d publish such sick trash. “No, heroin addiction’s quite okay. I just never actually use any. No… really. I’ve got it under control. I go to conventions of addicts who never use any.”

  10. “So, please, be understanding and supportive,” pedophile Todd Nickerson wrote. “It’s really all we ask of you.”

    “It’s all we ask of you.” Riiiiiight!

    We all know how the left works. “We just want A; we don’t want B!” So you give ’em A. Then… “Y’know, it’s only logical that we should have B; but we’re not asking for C!”

    And on and on it goes. They wanted Z right at the start, but they had to play on your reason and compassion to get there. This is why I sneer at people who want to live their lives by reason instead of religion. There’s no way to tell when you’ve slid from reason to rationalization. Religion lays down a line and says, “Never cross this line. NEVER.”

    “In essence, your brain knows what it likes and isn’t going to take no for an answer.”

    If people’s desires “can’t take no for an answer,” then the entire science of psychology has turned out to be a lie and a scam.

    Shut it down.

  11. Salon’s article is not some first shot of provocative clickbait. The leftist sites and publications have been circulating pedophile sympathy articles for the last few years. It’s a campaign already underway to reform the image of pedophiles into pitiable victims of their innate urges who are entitled to public compassion and funding.

    http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/522/transcript

    http://www.upworthy.com/this-19-year-old-pedophile-has-never-gone-near-a-child-and-he-needs-you-to-hear-his-story

    http://www.theawl.com/2014/08/the-pedophiles-who-didnt-want-to-hurt-children

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-extein-msw/why-queers-should-care-about-sex-offenders_b_3386970.html

  12. I don’t rape children because I have no inclination to rape children; I’m guessing that’s the case with everyone here. Wouldn’t you have some sympathy for someone who does have such an inclination, but restrains himself?

    This is very similar to how the Catechism treats homosexuality. Homosexuality is regarded as a grave disorder, but being sick with that disorder is no more sinful than having any other illness or birth defect. It is the act of copulating with other homosexuals which is sinful.

  13. …the Roman Republic lasted 482 years, American Republic is 239 years old, we are not gonna make it at all!

  14. “Wouldn’t you have some sympathy for someone who does have such an inclination, but restrains himself?”

    Frankly, no. Lots of people in this people in this world will probably have sexual inclinations that they will never be able to act upon, for various reasons, be they legal, moral, social, etc.

    It was the homosexual activists who disseminated this premise that every person is entitled to act upon their allegedly innate sexual proclivities and that being restricted from doing so is some kind of torturous fate worse than death. Now that notion has been accepted and ratified throughout the secular and religious realms.

    A few years ago, a man was arrested because he placed video cameras in a Hooters pageant dressing room. He claimed he did so because he “never had a girlfriend.”

    http://www.local10.com/news/Miami-Beach-police-Man-taped-Hooters-contestants-undressing/15149822

    Were we supposed to have given him sympathy for all the years he restrained himself from committing criminal acts while he was lusting after unattainable sexual targets?

  15. I agree that having whatever disorder or attraction is not a reason to condemn or punish any such person. Though if other people become aware of this, they have every right in taking precautions or disassociating themselves from this person.

    What my point was that I do not believe that resisting those urges or attractions merits special sympathy or compassion, as if this person is some self-sacrificing hero or blessed martyr, which is how these articles try to portray them.

  16. As other comments in this thread above have noted, this is one of the many new fronts of attack on the Judaic-Christian values of our country. The previous post is more evidence of that. It is about destruction: of marriage, of family, of innocence. Know this: those of us who stand against such things will be labeled “haters,” “bigots, “Christo-facists” and all manner of epithets. We can decry political and legal developments all we want. The soul of our country is dead. We let it be killed. God have mercy on us.

  17. The failure to sin is not the point. It is the publication of such an apologia which is terrifying. That is how these things begin. We’ve seen it before with same sex marriage. It is propaganda and “battlefield preparation.” Either we fight now, or we lose. Period.

  18. They’re not.

    Everyone has dark urges, and inappropriate thoughts. Most of us have the grace to keep them to ourselves, and feel ashamed of them. Those who act on them are criminals. Easy enough to tell the difference

  20. No, he’s not asking for sympathy because he has restrained himself from raping children, or raping anybody. He deserves sympathy because he fights–successfully–against temptations that you never have to deal with. He deserves sympathy in the same way that an alcoholic who restrains himself from getting drunk, or a homosexual who restrains his perverted desires, deserves sympathy.

  22. Fighting off a temptation is not something somebody deserves praise or sympathy for, whether or not other people have those temptations in common. And as for your examples, I do not think the temperate alcoholic or the chaste homosexual deserve any special sympathy either.

  23. The editors at Solon are not decadent. That’s far too mild a description for them. They are sick and depraved.

  25. Look at my other comment– he would have had to have been caught with more than two pounds of pot in order to get a felony possession charge in Alabama. That’s a dealer or grower, not a user.

  26. Of course I have. They are outliers. The great bulk of addicts are expert liars who live difficult lives. You show me someone who claims to be an addict and I’ll show you someone who actually is.

  28. I did the math after I posted; the odd numbers for New Jersey, Delaware and Alabama work out to 50g, 5kg, and 1kg. Damn metric system.

  29. Some pot smokers told me that weed makes them lecherous. If true, that’s probably not a good thing for some people.

  31. What I’ve found by being the only sober person at every party is that pot switches on people’s apathy, and that apathy can often be moral apathy.

    Sure, some people flop on the sofa and watch infomercials all day. But another guy with his apathy cranked up to eleven just might do something vile.

    I watched a documentary several years ago that was interviewing serial rapists and other criminals in maximum security. Every damned one of them said at some point (while discussing the crimes that put them there), “So I smoked some weed…”

  32. Indeed. See my comments on this topic on the previous blog thread.

    Upshot: if a person thinks an illegal thing without acting upon it, that’s what we call a thought crime. And I’d like to have any person here tell that they have never committed a thought crime.

    Personally, I’m a little concerned about convicting people of thought crimes, considering the number of times I’ve wanted to take a baseball bat to an idiot driver’s car in traffic, or some kid with boomingly loud rap music in a traffic jam on the Expressway. I could get the death penalty for the number of times I’ve thought that.

  33. So who would judge these thought crimes that you find objectionable? Please, tell me that you have never, ever had a thought of doing anything illegal withou acting upon it. And if you have, then how are you any different from this guy, morally speaking? Because you have a personal preference for the severity of one thought crime over another?

    Personally, I think it’s good that someone recognizes such things in themselves and are willing to seek help. I’m not eager to condemn someone for that, and I’m a bit disappointed that you would.

  34. I agree with that. We’ve seen many articles on this very site dealing with people who never in a million years would admit their sins and flawed, immoral thinking. So when a guy does, personally, I don’t feel like eviscerating him. Nor am I saying to celebrate him. I’m saying, show some compassion for an imperfect human who is trying to overcome, and don’t jump to conclusions about what he’s thinking or capable of. Only God knows the thoughts and the hearts of men.

  35. Don’t know what your religious views are, but if you’re a Christian, I question this attitude.

    All of us have committed sin crimes against God, even thought crimes, because He knows our thoughts. There are none good, Jesus said that. But yet He shows grace, mercy and compassion, and we are supposed to be like him.

    I read a Francis Chan book this weekend, and was inspired to work on being more compassionate toward others, not natually one of my strong points, let’s say. : )

  36. RKae, are you saying that I should stop counseling people like this guy, which I do? And all people with unwanted desires who have not acted upon them, of which there are many?

    Should we condemn others for their thoughts? How can we be Christ-like if we do that?

    I don’t take credit for anything, but give God credit. The Holy Spirit does the work. But I have taught people just like this guy how they can develop a strong relationship with Jesus. Praise God, this works, inasmuch as many people (even “normal” people who commit thought crimes that no one knows about) don’t have, and don’t know how to have, a strong personal relationaship with the Almighty.

  37. Shame is not a good therapy, DD. I have personally seen people get turned around 180 degrees from burdens like this with the right sort of treatment. It seems to me that this particular guy speaks out because he has falsely concluded that he cannot change. He just doesn’t know where to go to get real help. Because he CAN change, that is for certain.

  38. I’m not judging or convicting this person or any person of “thought crime.” I do not think he should be legally punished for his thoughts. However, if he discloses his secret thoughts, people are fully justified in taking certain precautions, like avoiding this person or not permitting him in the presence of their children.
    What rankles me is his pity party treatise and his expectation of sympathy and praise for resisting the urge to rape children. I’ve wanted to do plenty of illegal things, but I don’t go crying to people and wanting their compassion because I resisted the urge to kill some kid I hated from middle school.

    “Personally, I think it’s good that someone recognizes such things in themselves and are willing to seek help.”

    Well, personally, I don’t think it’s an entirely good thing. Sometimes these melodramatic revelations are less about “recognizing such things in themselves” and more about manipulating other people. He and other confessional pedophiles are using the same jargon that has infected addiction/sobriety groups, which is this whole idea that bad urges are a clinical and physiological compulsion and that persons with such urges are victims of illness.

    When drug addicts “relapse” and commit all sorts of drug related crimes, we are exhorted to not “judge” and tolerate their “lapses” as an inevitable part of “recovery.” How much of a leap will it take before coddled pedophiles start thinking it is only natural that they may have a few “lapses” in their commitment to not molesting children?

  39. I’m an attorney, and I’ve been warning about “sexual orientation” being sold as a legally protected class for 15 years, pointing out that there are MANY sexual orientations besides homosexuality and heterosexuality. They used to be called “fetishes”, “disorders” or “deviant acts”, which could be frowned upon, marginalized or criminalized. Homosexuality was once included in them.

    But once homosexuality broke out of that “pen” by being considered a “legal consensual act”, it wasn’t long before “act” became “choice”, which in turn became “state of being”, and thus, the advent of legal protection based on “sexual orientation”. All without any real proof to justify it.

    And homosexuality left a trail of breadcrumbs for all the other deviancy to follow to the path of legitimacy. With race, you can’t protect Latinos but not Asians. So once you protect one “oreintation”, you can’t refuse to protect another. You can use all of the arguments homosexual made to do this. After all, how can you criminalize someone for “what they are”, and why should they need to show proof, when the homosexuals didn’t? We are past considering them “acts”, and very few realized it even happened.

    Now you are seeing mainstream forums, not back alley rags, pushing it. After polygamy, pedo is next up, but it won’t be sex with 8 year olds, it will be sex with 11-16 year olds, citing “born that way”, abortion permitted to 12 year old girls, the flow of teacher-student sex, repeal of statutory sexual assault, and of course, the rich and powerful getting caught doing it (Jared Fogel, Billy Clinton and his ignored trips to Pedo Isle, Jerry Sandusky, etc.).

    It cannot be permitted.

  40. I am not Christian, so I really do not care whether my attitude on this matter is in conformance with the Christian ethos.

    Some pedophiles may earnestly seek Christian redemption. Good luck to them. However, more than few will happily exploit these concepts of “grace” and “forgiveness” that they may molest with impunity.

  41. Oh yes, he’s trying to sell it as a disability. And we have to accommodate people with disabilities under law, don’t we? ADA, yes? One small step on the road to social acceptance.

    So what if Uncle JellyFinger here tries to get a job as an elementary school janitor after publicly disclosing his “inclinations”? If he is refused the job based upon them, is the school not discriminating against him based on his “sexual orientation”, regardless of whether he ever acted on it?

    See what a clusterf**k this is going to become?

  44. That reminds me of that old Chris Rock joke – “why do people always want credit for somethin’ they’re SUPPOSED to do? Like a woman that says, ‘Tsst, I take care of MY kids!’ You’re SUPPOSED to, ya dumb motherf**ker!”

  45. So because some random, unnamed person might use their problem to manipulate others, we should tar everyone with the same brush?

    Honestly, I’m concerned with individuals. I can’t save the world, nor do I feel like judging the world, particularly on the basis of presumed actions.

    If a person has actually done a thing, then God would have him take responsibility for his actions, but if he hasn’t committed a crime, then I have no problem with showing compassion. And evidently I am in the minority here.

  46. Not taring everyone with the same brush. But I strongly suspect that self-identified pedophiles who publish these kinds of pity-seeking apologias for their “plights” are among the manipulative fold. And the more these pseudo-confessional essays get legitimized, more of the manipulative fold will come out of the shadows, seeking the wrong kind of acceptance.

  47. I understand that you are of good nature, and are trying to provide a path for “redemption” of a sort, and though there is a world of difference between thought and deed, compulsion is a step beyond thought or even capacity. Anyone could, given the proper circumstances, commit horrible acts, usually if they have a “justification” for it, real or imagined. This guy is not simply thinking about it or imagining it, he is driven to it, compelled to do it.

    Can he be reformed? Well, the truest test comes in exposing your children to this individual on a regular basis. He claims he needs help, and may be reformed? Perhaps, but I am not inclined to bet my child’s welfare on that. And I sure as hell wouldn’t risk someone else’s either.

    He absolutely should be discriminated against for this. Criminalized for the mere thought, no. But identified and marginalized for the compulsion, yes.

    Perhaps in a sane world we could keep a open mind on this, but this is not a sane world. And we no longer have a sane society or legal system. So I’m drawing the line here.

  49. Never, ever confuse a narcissistic admission against interest seeking “sympathy” or attention as an act of contrition. It’s just another form of manipulation.

  50. Having said that, neither of us know for certain, do we, so it’s a matter of approach.

    Actually, I get what you’re saying, because I used to be you. I mistrusted, and I still do to an extent, and especially when my mistrust is clearly and obviously warranted. In this case, when the guy says that he hasn’t acted upon his desires, absent any contrary proof, I’m willing to reserve judgment. If he’d said he once acted upon his desires, or stalked a child, even if he’d claimed to have changed, then by his own admission, he’s a criminal.

    But reserving judgment is greatly different than passing judgment, especially when his only crime is doing business with the braying donkeys at Salon, so I’m reluctant to pass judgment here. I’m also surprised and disappointed to see the number of people commenting who are not at all reluctant. Dismayed and heartbroken, even.

    Furthermore, I’ve written published articles, and often the end result bears little resemblance to my submission. Some editors so completely change the meaning of what I’ve written that I won’t submit to that publisher anymore. I would not be surprised to learn that Salon wields some machete-esque heavy-handedness with the idealogical editing.

Comments are closed.