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.”
My opinion is not based on the assumption that Nickerson is lying about his past and must have offended at some point. I acknowledge that some pedophiles or people in general are capable of suppressing their sexual urges indefinitely. Even accepting Nickerson’s claims at face value, the essay is manipulative and is part of an insidious trend, whoever the true author is.
And if you’re going to assume that the Salon editors deformed and mutated the essay into something else and misrepresented Nickerson’s message, then that means we know even less about the “real” Mr. Nickerson and his disposition. For all we know, the rough draft may have included even more unsavory aspects which Salon edited out for PR purposes.
I have a problem with marginalization. That is breathtakingly harsh for someone who has committed no crime.
As I said, I have personally known guys who have had these kinds of thoughts, who are horrified, want them gone, and I have zero concern about them actually offending. They are highly motivated to change. I can tell you this, after the first few times you get zoomed as a counselor, you learn to read people pretty good, too.
Losing your job, your career, your friends; having your house vandalized repeatedly (if you can even find a place to live…usually takes several months to find a landlord willing to rent to you); having your car trashed until you can no longer afford to have one; getting round-the-clock threatening phone calls; getting beaten up, robbed, etc. And you can’t report any of this to the police because they literally refuse to your face to help you. This is what marginalization looks like for a sex offender.
And you think this is the way somebody who hasn’t committed a criminal act should be treated? FYI, violent assault offenders and murderers with multiple offenses don’t get treated this badly. So a guy who beat the crap out of his wife on a regular basis, no problem, but a guy who thinks a thing but never acts on it should himself have the crap beaten out of him on a regular basis? You’re right…if this is what people think is ok, the world IS insane.
I know what manipulation is and how to recognize it. Thing is, neither of us know with a factual certainty that this is manipulation. As I’ve said elsewhere, we don’t even know how heavily edited this article is.
So I’m simply not prepared to judge a guy publicly and hang him out to dry on the basis of one article that I’ve read. Nor willing to figuratively lynch a guy for doing nothing but availing himself of his 1A rights. At the same time, I’m also not ready to be this guy’s cheerleader. I think judgment should be reserved, is what I’m saying.
Just seems strange to me that I see more attacks on this guy in the comments (at the time I wrote this) than I see on the main subject of the blog piece; i.e., a known criminal arrested for killing and sodomizing his daughter. I’m not referring to you, but it could appear to a casual observer that to some people, the thought is worse than the act.
“For all we know, the rough draft may have included even more unsavory aspects which Salon edited out for PR purposes.”
Yes, for all we know. Also, for all we know, Salon could have sensationalized it. We don’t know. So I’m not going to jump to conclusions based upon the historical evidence of Salon fact checking, that’s for sure.
This is a simple difference of opinion, as I see it. I’m not willing to jump to conclusions and you are. I mean, I’m not looking to be an a-hole or a devil’s advocate here, and I like you, but you are kind of jumping to conclusions, don’t you think?
I’m judging the essay on its own tone and merits, which I find disconcerting and objectionable and part of a nascent pattern of sympathy solicitation from “minor attracted” individuals. You suggested that Salon editors possibly altered the piece to fit an agenda and made it worse. I pointed out that it could have easily been the opposite course in the essay’s development.
You’re not simply asking me to give this author the benefit of the doubt. If I find anything bad about his missive, you’re asking me to go further and assume that these bad elements were implanted by somebody else and not him. You accuse me of jumping to conclusions, and yet you ask others to disregard unsavory things in the essay and make exculpatory assumptions about the author so as to maintain the hope that Nickerson is some kind of worthy penitent.
If one is actually a “sex offender” with all the legal encumbrances, that means that person actually has offended. I think you started conflating actual convicted offenders with non-offending pedophiles.
I don’t support anybody being violently attacked or having their property destroyed. But there is a difference between lynching somebody versus plainly telling him “You’re not welcome at my home, or at my social occasions. I don’t wish to be associated with you in any way. Goodbye.” And no, I don’t think people are obliged to welcome pedophiliac persons (offending or not) into their social circle as a way of compensating for the violent vigilantism in common practice.
IIRC, his joke was about men. It’s riskier to poke fun at women.
This is one of those few cases where I disagree with you. I know well the power of propaganda, and I won’t even read the article since the whole setup stinks of a normalization attempt.
One man is a threat to one kid. One article is a threat to a nation’s culture and all of its kids. Words are power. Of course I’m going to push back more against a dangerous cultural trend than an already-incarcerated individual.
It seemed to me that by suggesting marginalization as a societal response to a guy’s unacceptable thoughts, you were conflating the two. And I’d be a complete ninny if I didn’t support different levels of punishment for different levels of offense, but perhaps you were unaware of the extreme nature of the marginalization (I would call it criminal behavior in many cases) that awaits a person who is tagged with a sex offender label, whether they actually offended or not.
As an interesting aside, when an offender reports his address, and then later moves, LE does not typically stampede to their database to de-associate the former address. Thus, a completely innocent dupe could move into the old residence, neighbors find that address on the state offender list, and the innocent guy then gets repped as an offender, with all the attendant marginalization.
Also, of course no one should be required to welcome someone into their social circle if the don’t want them there; I wasn’t suggesting that anyone should. And that also applies to people of different races, religions, genders, or sexual procivities of any kind that a person does not wish to associate with. Freedom of association, and all that.
And luckily we’re still free at the moment to have our own opinions.
Also, I work in a marketing department, Daniel. I know a LOT about propaganda. 😀 Which is why I hate it.
But what if the article were posted on, say, my church’s website? Or the website of the volunteer organization through which I do counseling? Would you still see it as propaganda? It seems as if it’s a matter of Salon having published it, and your natural rejection of pretty much any of the copious amounts of crap that they spew.
Gee, and to think all this started when I said that many times non-offenders can get counseling – in particular, Christian counseling – and get rid of their obsession/addiction/compulsion. Same thing has worked for lots of homosexuals. I know some of those, too. So I’m not willing to judge Nickerson or write him off as a lost cause, just because of the baying hyenas at Salon. Again, I didn’t see the unedited article. But I have seen my own material edited to the point where it was no longer recognizable as mine, even to me.
I’m not asking anyone to disregard anything! Like anyone here would do that anyway, regardless of any argument I made, even if it was the greatest argument in history.
I just think it’s a damn shame when a witch hunt ensues due to somebody’s thought crime, which it seems to me is what’s happened. I know from personal experience that someone like this can be rehabilitated. That’s what I’m saying. I’m saying I’ve seen it happen.
If I seem passionate about it, it’s because I think that people who can be rehabilitated should be. I have a lot of compassion for people like this, and indeed, for anyone who is suffering in any way. But this doesn’t mean I’m a bleeding heart sucker either, because I’m not.
“Shame is not a good therapy, DD. “
Who said anything about “therapy”? We should be ashamed of things that are shameful. Our aversion to feelings of shame is part of what prevents us from engaging in shameful behaviors, in the same way that feelings of pride and honor encourage us to strive for achievement. We need to step back and examine objectively the popular notion that there is a “true self” whose needs and desires always trump whatever we owe to others. I’ve noticed that the “true self” usually turns out to be a very selfish self, with no sense of social obligation or duty. Whereas the guy holding down a humdrum job to pay the bills for his wife and kids is not celebrated by the therapeutic culture, if he ditches it all to go in search of his “true self” — which quite often involves kinky sexual adventure — then this is applauded as personal growth.
The “true self” is usually imagined as living a more exciting life than the normal, ordinary person. And the Internet encourages the imagination of such a “true self” by providing forums where these Walter Mitty types gather to share their sense of excitement over their fantasies. So the pedophiles have their forums, where they reinforce their sense that their shameful desires really should be acceptable, and then this idea — “It’s not me who is wrong, but rather it is society’s negative judgment of me that is wrong” — gets promoted by liberals who feel that “understanding” is always good, whereas being “judgmental” is always bad.
This “therapeutic morality,” as Christopher Lasch called it, involves the assumption that feeling bad about yourself is the root of all evil. Of course! This is the answer: Hitler felt bad about himself! If only there had been someone to soothe his low self-esteem and make him feel good about himself . . .
See how silly this idea is?
BINGO!
“I will act pitiful, so that anyone who criticizes me will seem callous, and thereby my critics will be discredited, while I will gain credibility.”
As if we can’t spot that hustle.
my associate’s stride close aunty makes $98 an hour on the portable workstation……….Afterg an average of 19952 Dollars monthly,I’m finally getting 97 Dollars an hour,just working 4-5 hours daily online.….. Weekly paycheck… Bonus opportunities…earn upto $16k to $19k /a month… Just few hours of your free time, any kind of computer, elementary understanding of web and stable connection is what is required…….HERE I STARTED…look over here
ppf…..
???? http://GooglePrimeTimesJobsNetworkOnlineCenters/$98hourlywork…. ??????????????????????????????????????????????
Us hapless bastards in Canada, for one, Mike. Our bureaucratic moral and intellectual superiors (may Trudeau’s socialist soul rot in hell forever) metrificated us in the early 70s. I still have to convert the numbers in my head in order to get meaningful information.
By the looks of things, it’s right around the corner for you, too, mate.
OK lefties, is there NOW a reason this POS should never be out of jail?
Overcrowding??
TUFF SHIT !!!!!!!!!!
Yep. As you chronicle daily, the “mentally ill” have now coalesced into “political movements”, and the Internet made it all possible.
If you are making soooooooooooooo much money doing what you do, why are you spamming boards?
Ah. So you have a financial interest in this.
Actually it was about other black people, WAY before Rock became a PC lefty.
“‘I ain’t never been to jail!’ What you want, a cookie?!”
Discrimination is not bad – discriminating based upon race or gender is, unless there are legitimate, factual reasons for doing so. Even the govt. can under strict scrutiny, even though it is very rare.
And this line of thinking is EXACTLY what will get pedophilia protected under law as a disability if not a protected class.
What you call “sin”, others will (and do) call “disability”.
No where did I say that this man should be beaten to death, or even threatened. But there is no way on God’s green and fertile earth that I’m goign to socialize with him, or allow him in my presence. I identified the Wolf, I call him the Wolf and I am not putting him in the hen house. You don’t like that, too damn bad.
Again, it points to my example – if a public school (or private school) decides not to hire this man to work in a setting involving children based upon his public admissions of pedo desire, even if he never committed the act, then you are discriminating based upon “sexual orientation”. So, under “developing” law, the school would be WRONG and he would be RIGHT. That has nothing to do with manipulation, that has everything to do with him exercising the “rights” that other dumb-asses stupidly gave to him without realizing it by legally protecting “orientation”. It’s not his fault that the judges and legislatures didn’t realize it, it’s there fault for not doing their jobs.
Both your moral prospective and the now amoral legal system will both see legitimacy in his plight. I don’t, because I do not want someone sexually attracted to children put in a position where they exercise care, custody or control over them. Period.
If you believe otherwise, have the strength of your convictions and invite him, or someone like him, into your home, to lodge in the room adjacent to your children. After all, the poor soul is just grappling with sin and needs that helping hand, yes? Morality is not true morality until it is tested and withstands the test.
“I’m not asking anyone to disregard anything!”
I think you are. You told me that if I find any parts of Nickerson’s Salon essay disturbing or alarming, that I should attribute those segments to Salon editorial modifications and not attribute them to Nickerson, so as to maintain some kind of cleaner slate impression of him.
“I just think it’s a damn shame when a witch hunt ensues due to somebody’s thought crime”
None of us is going to this man’s house with pitch forks and torches. We’re reacting to his published submission and expressing our concerns and objections about its content, tone, and implications. But while we’re on the subject of “thought crime,” if a person you know makes these kinds of disclosures about himself, what kind of response is appropriate? Are people obligated to continue inviting him into their homes and social occasions? Are they obligated to permit him in proximity to children? Are they obligated to act as if nothing is wrong at all so as spare him negative consequences for having revealed his thoughts?
“I know from personal experience that someone like this can be rehabilitated. That’s what I’m saying. I’m saying I’ve seen it happen.”
Sure you do. I’ll bet a lot of people knew that such persons could be rehabilitated, right up until the moment their prized redemption case was caught with some kid in the basement or closet.
Spend time around regular say daily or multiple times a week users they are the most apathetic people you will ever encounter (often making them completely amoral assholes) — it’s a terrible waste of life and the pot supporters never want to discuss the many negatives
She needs you to jump in and throw some good money at her so she can make money!
No sympathy, aren’t men programmed for multiple partners? But most of us have no sympathy for adulterers. There are also numerous fetishes that people are afflicted with but I feel no sympathy for the diaper wearer, the bug crusher, the necrophiliac .
I am aware that marginalization can indeed be extreme and unkind. So long as people have the freedom of association (and disassociation), it’s just a human reality that people have to accept. If people can disassociate or marginalize somebody for something like no longer believing in a certain religion, then I don’t see why admission of pedophiliac desire is some unjustified reason for same.
I don’t believe in inflicting violence upon people who have not been convicted of any crime, and for those convicted, I think all persons concerned should be bound by the law. But on the flip side, I do not think the frequency and harshness of vigilantism towards such individuals obligates me or anyone else to drop our guard so as to compensate them for society’s cold shoulder.
Pedophilia is a choice. I suspect most pedophiles are damaged goods (from abuse in their youth) and I pity that. But the suggestion that the only way they can be sexual is with children is a lie. The child sex is about power and abuse, not about fulfillment.
So, no, I do not pity that. I despise it.
How does your compassion manifest itself? Would you want/let this man around your children or any children? Would you advocate that a woman date or marry him knowing his true desires? If he is/was married do you think it is ok for him to have children — does society leave them in his care until he abuses them? Are you comfortable with him living next door to you, at your public pool or library? How do you accommodate a pedophile?
Don’t pedophiles have an over 90% recidivism rate?
The way to solve the persecution of sex offenders problem is to get honest about sexual assault: What do I mean by that? Well a stranger assault with conviction means life without parole then they don’t have to worry about marginalization. An actual pedophile assault with court conviction should be life without parole with capital punishment on the table. Statutory rape needs to be reassessed a 20 year old with a 17 year old or an 18 year old with a 15 or 16 year old probably shouldn’t be a crime. And I’d push for a nationwide age of consent and excuse any consensual contact between parties that are past puberty and 4 years or less apart thus not making HS or College seniors with younger girlfriends/boyfriends sex criminals.
“But what if the article were posted on, say, my church’s website?”
That would cause me great alarm and raise grave suspicions about your church, the kinds of people it permits in its fold, and what things may have already been committed and “forgiven” within its confines.
exactly everyone has their own weaknesses/temptations it is expected that you try to fight them. I don’t see a lot of people advocating for sympathy for fatties stepping away from the donuts…
I thought of this too that is exactly the argument going on here: you don’t get credit or sympathy for not raping children because you aren’t supposed to rape children — this is so obvious that it is a comedy routine
I have to wonder why anyone would go public like this unless they are looking to manipulate/gain sympathy/further an agenda — there is no other reason to put his sexual desires out there…
No one is “convicting” this person, but it would be criminally negligent to let him anywhere near children.
I would argue it is our society’s lack of shame that is destroying us. Bring back shame and shunning — I personally advocate it for all sorts of behavior not just sexual proclivities.
The comments at the Salon article are pure comedy gold. For every “you need jesus” comment there is an equal and twice as forceful “don’t be judgemental man” response. To the point that I wonder if the defense isnt being orchestrated by the folks that support this sort of item.
I am also reminded of the following Der Spiegel article about the European Left and thier grand experiment from 2010 with free love and children and mistakes made when some folks of questionable ethics and political stripes entered the fray.
http://m.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/a-702679.html
Here’s Why the Progressive Left Keeps Sticking Up for Pedophiles http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/21/heres-why-the-progressive-left-keeps-sticking-up-for-pedophiles/
It’s doing it’s work in the case of that fellow Nickerson, who was fired from his job and ekes out a partial living as a freelancer in graphic design. No clue how it came to the attention of his employers or what’s in it for him propagating this.
No it is not. The same attempts were made here ca. 1975, through a promotional agency called the U.S. Metric Board. Those of us who were in late elementary school at the time were commonly given short courses in metric measurements. The sort of bourgeois public sector types were all over it then, telling us all it was the wave of the future and we had to eat our spinach.
The thing is, in laboratories where it is practical and useful, it was adopted voluntarily. In mundane life where it’s a nuisance, it was not. There was a run of years when TV weatherman stated temperatures in Fahrenheit and Celsius. Then it was abandoned.
That’s what was baffling about it. I wondered if someone had doxxed him or someone he’d confided him had spread it around.
“Horrifyingly, there are signs of a new pedophile acceptance movement forming on the Left. Just as Allen West warned, the gay rights movement is being used as a template. First comes the argument that pedophiles are just “born that way,” absolving them of any moral responsibility for their desires. Then comes the argument that pedophiles are just normal people, like the rest of us, but somehow impoverished or victimised by their own condition.”
“Inevitably, our society’s current ostracisation of pedophiles will be portrayed as an injustice: an oppression from which pedophiles must be liberated, or for which they deserve our sympathy. And woe to the oppressors!”
Before our very eyes.
Texas has, and probably other states, a “Romeo and Juliet” law, which, whatever we may feel about the appropriateness of sixteen year olds having penetrative sexual activity with anyone, recognizes that such things happen, so the nineteen year old with the sixteen year old concubine/true love is not convicted of a crime. Before that law was passes,. nearly a half century ago, the girl’s parents would wait until he turned eighteen and have the law on him for statutory rape, if they could get a conviction before the girl also turned eighteen. My parents were married at seventeen and eighteen, and had no children for five more years, just in case one was wondering.
Exactly. The whole point of the Salon article is normalize pedophilia to Soccer Moms.
“Who does the metric system anyway?”
Idiot Euro-wannabes
Let me ask you: how would you accomodate a reformed pedophile? From your strings of responses, it appears doubtful to me to you even believe such a thing is possible and that moreover, you would continue to treat a non-offending former pedphile the same as you would treat a released offender.
I have been speaking all along of rehabilitated individuals, and I have said from the beginning that this person is a good candidate for rehabilitation.
My free Christian counseling is a calling from God. I work a regular 50-60 hr/wk job, plus I write Christian blog content on a weekly basis for regular publishers. So when I counsel people, I have limited time and I choose candidates very carefully and only on the grounds that if they do not comply with the terms of the therapy, they are out. And I believe that I could work with this guy and have a reasonable chance of a successful outcome.
That is all I have said all along. All along, my argument has been that some people are salvageable and rehabilitatable through the blood of Jesus Christ. Once a person has truly repented and is born again, he becomes Paul’s “new man” and is forgiven of his past sins, therefore having no need to carry around shame baggage. God says that He not only forgives, but most importantly, He chooses to forget. Therefore, if we are shamed by the things of our past after we have been forgiven, we don’t trust God.
It seems to me from the first moment there’s been a lynch mob out to hang this guy for a thought crime, and now they want to hang me for my thought crimes. But when someone recognizes that they have a serious problem, and wants to be “normal”, I see a sinner in need repentance, and I can help guide that person to their actual Therapist. I’ve done it before.
If people want to separate my words from my stated intent and take them out if context, then let them hang me. I stand by what I’ve said.
I did NOT say that you SHOULD attribute it to Salon’s editors; I said it COULD be. This means “could possibly be” and I guess I’m starting to see that I should have my lawyer vet all my comments before I post them, even though you knew full well what I meant.
But if you think that Salon did not possibly (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/possibly?s=t) inject idealogical bias into this, and possibly (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/possibly?s=t) any other article that they publish, I believe you are possibly (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/possibly?s=t) mistaken.
And now you call me a liar when I say that such people can be and have been rehabilitated and I have seen it? Seems like you’re coming after me with a pitchfork now. What is your intent here? That I am somehow required at the point of a pitchfork to agree with you, or else I’m a liar?
What financial interest would that be? The fact that I provide free Christian counseling to people in need of it? Yes, I’m making a fortune on that.
“Therefore, if we are shamed by the things of our past after we have been forgiven, we don’t trust God.”
Isn’t that special? Being shameless about past wrongs committed is not just permitted. It’s actually obligatory for allegedly absolved members of whatever sect.
“and now they want to hang me for my thought crimes”
Please come down from your martyr’s soapbox. It’s bad enough that Nickerson spewed self-pity while howling for sympathy. Now you want to scrape up some of his pity leftovers?