Nice try at changing the subject, but you still have not addressed any substantive point of my last post. There's no question that McKenzie actively sought these pictures. That part is completely logical, as I showed before. Repeating it only further crumbles the shaky foundation on which your arguments are built. You act as though this is some new and astounding revelation, but if you read the article, it's the option that makes the most sense.
The problem is that you are attributing his actions (searching for the pictures) to pedophilia or some other deviant sexual interest that involves children (otherwise you would not include a reference to their safety). That is not a necessary conclusion to that given information, especially when so much more data is available.
You forgot to include the fact that two professionals in the field have deemed him not to be a pedophile.
You are forgetting to include the categorizing behavior he exhibited, which is common in a variety of mental illness, including bipolar.
You are forgetting to include the fact that the State of Colorado has a legal process for allowing people like this guy back into their kids' lives - including overnight stays.
You are forgetting to include the fact the the State of Colorado requires physiological as well as psychological testing of sex offenders(the article refers to the plytheismograph, which is a part of that testing).
You are forgetting that his medications were wrong until sometime after the time he searched for these pictures.
You are forgetting that the State of Colorado only requires a person with a sex-related misdemeanor (as per the article), and that he has past the 5 year limit and is therefore most likely removed from that requirement. You can check the Denver Post. They keep an updated list of sex offenders on their website.
You are forgetting that the legal system DID do its job by convicting this guy, sending him to prison, and making him register as a sex offender.
You are forgetting the fact that the legal system DID do it's job in granting dissolution of marriage and ruling that visits should be supervised.
You are forgetting the fact that the State of Colorado Court of appeals overturned the decision of a local magistrate regarding child support in this case.
You are forgetting that the District Court overturned the the same magistrate in her decision to send McKenzie to jail for contempt of court.
You are forgetting to include the fact he is current receiving the State Vocational Rehabilitation office to develop a skills necessary to run his own business.
You are forgetting that the court, however much you may dislike the idea, is perfectly within its rights to award non-supervised overnight visits is it feels that ALL the evidence combined supports that decision. Just because the visits were made to be supervised at first, in 2004 I think, does not mean that the court must keep it that way should McKenzie petition the court.
The Colorado Revised Statutes are available to anyone on the internet. I suggest you review them before continuing down any road that involves the legal system in Colorado.
I do not represent McKenzie in any way, form or fashion. I'm an advocate for the mentally ill - in Colorado Springs (not Davidsonville, MD or pretty much anywhere outside the I-25 corridor). That alone is enough for me to take special interest in this case. I am not here to support or defend anyone. My only purpose is to ensure discussions concerning the mentally ill do not deteriorate into a with-burning as they so often do. I do this with facts and by attacking the arguments(not the person) of others and picking apart the flaws that ultimately come about when emotion gets the better part of reason.
You, however, have neither proclaimed advocacy in any cause that might lead to your level of persistence and participation. You have also never indicated any relation to either party in the case. Are we to assume that a concerned citizen stumbled upon a story half a country away and has put this much effort into it because it seemed like a fun thing to do? This is why your participation is illogical. If you were an advocate, you would be participating in conversations like these all of you area of concern. Since the whole United States would have to be your area of concern in order for this argument to apply, you would be adding bits of detail from other stories and related articles to back up your claims. Instead, You post primarily opinion and continually ignore facts that do not fit well with your opinion. The only other option is that you are somehow related to one of the parties. Do you honestly expect us to believe otherwise? Seriously?
As I said, you continue to leave out facts that would endanger your position, even when these facts are thrust before your face. This is an emotional response, not a logical one. Logic would consider all the available facts in an argument and not continue to hammer the same ones over and over. The number of posts you have made and the number of times these facts have been spoon fed to you my myself and others indicates an intense emotional tie to this particular case. Are we to believe that you are some objective, non-connected individual from the outside who has stepped in to this case? Honestly? Seriously?
I get my tagline "LogicAlwaysWins" from the movie "A Beautiful Mind," where John Nash uses reason to get through life while suffering from schizophrenia. For example, one of his hallucinations couldn't possible be real because it was a little girl - a girl who'd never aged. If she didn't get older, she couldn't be real. The mentally ill often live through their life with the problem that their emotions lie to them. If you can't trust your emotions, you must trust reason.
You are correct in your assertion that Ms. Zubeck (not Zubick) did not explicitly say that this guy actively sought out child pornography, but your conclusion does not flow from that assertion. You will note the Ms. Zubeck never said explicitly that this guy 'accidentally' got the pictures as part of a big group. All she said was that he (quoting him), "would download a bunch of pictures as fast as I could get them, then I would spend time sorting them. I would find ones that were tricky to categorize."
From this statement, you can conclude that he either accidentally got them OR he intended to get them. If he accidentally got them, then he intentionally kept them for his "collection." If he intended to get them, then that fits right into the categorization story as well. Nowhere does it suggest he accidentally got them and then discarded them, as you seem to be suggesting it does.
Your assertion that "Gone is the assertion that he just wanted to sort and categorize a batch of pictures," is invalid, because you are only addressing how he got the pictures and not why. "Intentionally" can address the how, but "to categorize" can still address the why. You are jumping to conclusions based on too little information.
You also talk about "stepping forward into his new life." Did you not read the story and the dates in the story? The actions that led to his conviction occurred in 2002. He was tried in 2003. He was released from jail, having served his sentence in 2004. He started seeing his kids in a supervised environment after that. He's since been tested repeatedly and been found NOT to be a pedophile (translated: he is not sexually attracted to children. psychologically or physiologically.) He is remarried - apparently happily. He is a member of some writing group. He is working, self-employed with the help of a government agency (State Vocational Rehabilitation). He has a book contract and has given a large majority of his earnings to pay back child support. All of these are FACTS reported by Ms. Zubeck, but you simply ignore them all due to a personal bias based on the actions of another person completely unrelated to this case, or this person, with the exception of their diagnosis. Exactly what else does he need to do to "start a new life?" (please note, I am not addressing the specific issue of supervised or unsupervised visits, I am addressing the larger topic - and your argument - of "starting a new life.") The article also says this guy is on medications now - where he wasn't before, or the doses were too small. (Ms Zubeck writes - "Even on the meds, it's a battle. It always will be.")
I think this guy is pretty clear in his assertions that bipolar disorder - unmedicated or undermedicated - is what has led to his situation. Honestly, I think that's the point of the whole article, which is why NAMI and DBSA have both written letters to the Independant praising the article (not the guy - the article). Not being local, I'll assume you didn't get that issue of the Independent.
But here's my question for you: Why is someone in Davidsonville, MD so concerned, possibly obsessed, with a story in a "hometown" newspaper over half the country away? Your questions and arguments and your persistence suggest a level of emotion far too high for someone who has no tie to the story, whatsoever. So what connection do you have that drives this kind of illogical participation?
In response to #1 - In order for there to have been misinformation, there has to be a difference between what you said and what markgreen said. You quoted the article as saying "1716 pictures, including..." while markgreen said "1716 pictures, and some of them..." Unless, as I said before, there is some nuance in the definitions I'm just not getting, saying a set "includes" a smaller set is the same thing as saying some of a larger set is made up of a smaller set. You are talking about "misinformation," yet failing to show any. And just for clarity, I agree that name calling does nothing but weaken a position or argument.
#2 - I also do not see, in any of your posts, where you reference the law. What statute in the Colorado Revised Statutes covers any particular point in your statements to date? What article of the UCMJ was this guy tried under? What was the official charge? Seeing as how he's been tried, convicted, and served his sentence, as well as registering as a sex offender - which, by law, given his conviction of a misdemeanor, should have only been five years and should be completed by now (I can't say with certainty, because all I have to go on is what's in the article and what's in the law.) - what part of the law currently applies?
#3 - The "particular post" I was referring to was the one I quoted just above that statement where Ms. Zubeck (not Zubic) said there were only 20 or so pictures of "young girls." Seeing as she has apparently had access to the files on this guy and you have not, you must consider that statement when building your arguments. You can't ignore it. It is not a statement of the writer's opinion. You responded to that post by introducing yourself and asking her relationship to McKenzie. A while later, you insulted her with the sarcastic question "A writer without words?" Her reply suggested that you had not read the article in its entirety, otherwise you would have know the answer without asking. You haven't addressed anything to her since.
One last point. This is not the first time you have implied this guy is not taking his meds regularly. Is that truly what you are suggesting? If it is, would you please explain how you've come about this information? You told Ms. Zubeck you live in MD, so how can you know with any certainty whether someone in CO is taking their medication properly?
You are making a large - and incorrect - assumption to think I have not seen with my own eyes the ravages of bipolar disorder. To suggest that you have some inside information because you have a friend with the disease is a little short-sighted. To also suggest that some other bipolar sufferer is going to do the same things as your friend is another very large - and also incorrect - assumption.
NotBuyingIt claims there was bestiality involved in the pictures on this guy's computers. NBI claims this guy doesn't call his children on birthdays or holidays. NBI claims that this guy "never ONCE not ONCE...change a diaper, bathe a child, feed a child or read a book to one of his children." None of this is in the article or the document NBI linked to. The previous statement suggests constant contact with the family, otherwise stating what you saw (or didn't see) would be meaningless. Therefore, NBI must be someone close to his ex-wife's family - if not his ex-wife herself. NBI claims to have known the family for twenty years, but this family moved several times with the Air Force, as pointed in the article. This suggests a familial relationship as traditional friendship would be difficult to maintain through all those successive moves. NBI also seems to know the ages of this guy's children, another example of "inside" knowledge, as does the assertion that this guy has never been to a single music recital. Doesn't that imply that NBI has been to every one? Otherwise, the statement is meaningless. NBI's claim that McKenzie never calls his children seems very weak given the fact, as reported in the article, he is allowed to see his kids twice a month. Maybe he just talks to them in person. Aren't most parenting arrangements in a divorce situation every other week?
NBI also located an official document that, as far as I can tell, substantiates Ms. Zubeck's story; so what's the point? His ex-wife had the opportunity to comment, as reported in the article, but chose not to. The sheer number of absolute statements made in NBI's argument lead me to believe this has to be someone in the family who has a grudge. Not even JohnH has made an argument with so many absolute statements.
NBI also has not answered the questions asked about "taking responsibility." It does not help to keep repeating the same charges over and over without substantiating them with evidence. In fact, it weakens your position. I do not know the family - all I know is what I've seen reported here, and so far, the only people who have made arguments backed up by verifiable data are those who support this guy. Those who have attempted to vilify him do so from an emotional-based response that has nothing to do with the evidence given and often contradicts that evidence.
I'm not saying anyone out there has to like this guy - as I said earlier, I think what he did was morally reprehensible, but your assertions have to include ALL the evidence. You can't leave things out because you have something personal against the guy, which NBI obviously does, being so close to his ex-wife's family - if not his ex-wife. In fact, some of the arguments NBI is resurrecting are the same arguments that were picked apart earlier in this thread, as I previously pointed out.
First, I don't see any real difference between "1716 pictures, including..." and "1700+ pictures, some of which..." The second is merely a paraphrase of the first. In other words both sentences have the same meaning. "Including" means a portion of a set, as does "some of." Unless there's some nuance in the definitions I am missing....
Regardless, you are leaving out critical facts that hurt your argument. You may try to explain how the facts fit into an argument, or even don't apply, but you can't just ignore them. Specifically, I am referring to a post in these comments by the author of this article, Pam Zubeck, where she says:
"Moreover, to be clear, of the 1,700+ images found on his computer, only about 20 or so were of adolescent teens who were NOT engaged in any sexual activity and were not pictured with those of the opposite sex. Some were in family settings, such as nudist colonies."
Since you responded directly to Ms. Zubeck regarding this particular post, it seems odd that you would have left it out of your argument. You apparently read it and took in enough of its meaning to question the author about it, yet you ignore it when you try to argue the significance (or lack thereof) of the number of pictures.
In order to have a valid argument, you must either include or explain away ALL the facts. "Cherrypicking," to use your pejorative, the facts that support your argument while disregarding those that hurt your argument only works to make you appear prejudiced and taints your your whole argument, whether it is actually true or not.
Not Buying It - I fail to see where in this article this guy is not taking responsibility for his actions. Are you suggesting he is "not taking responsibility" because he has failed? Is that the criteria for taking responsibility for your actions - that you must succeed in your endeavors? It sounds to me that this guy is taking responsibility for his actions. He's not blaming the AF for his illness, his symptoms, or his actions. He's blaming them for (his words) "what they did wrong." Without letting this guy off the hook, you can still see that the AF did things wrong. You can't blame a credit card company for your tens of thousands of dollars in debt, but you can blame them for making it too easy to get a card with a limit above your means. He's not blaming his ex-wife as far as can tell - she's hardly mentioned. He's also not blaming the courts, except, once again, where they are wrong. When the court raised his child support, he appealed the decision - something he has a legal right to do. The Colorado Court of Appeals then remanded the child support, which means the magistrate screwed up - or in legal terminology, "erred." The magistrate also "erred" in sending this guy to jail in the first place - that was overturned by the district judge, according to the article.
So if he's not blaming society, not blaming the AF, not blaming the courts, not blaming his ex-wife, not blaming employers for his actions, then who is he blaming? If the AF was wrong and the magistrate was wrong, why is it not OK to call them wrong? As with the credit card example, it's possible to call someone "wrong" and still not blame them for your actions.
I think the best test anyone could give this guy would be to give him a job and see what he does with it. Does he pay his child support or horde all the money? Does he pay debts and help fill in the gaps in living expenses at home or does he squander it on junk?
Oh, yeah - that's also in the article. A book deal where he received $8200 and paid $6400 in child support (78%). Seems like if he has the means, he takes care of his responsibilities.
If you're going to insist that he is not "taking responsibility for his actions," then you have to explain away all of this. You can't ignore the facts. You may still come to the same conclusion, though I really don't see how, but you must include all the facts in the case for your opinion.
This guy did something that is morally reprehensible, and it is easy to let our emotions take over and vilify him, whether he deserves it or not. If you're going to vilify him, do it from a firm foundation of fact, otherwise, you end up looking like the villain.
Alas, Dakine808, you failed to take my advice and do your research before posting again, once again illustrating that your intent has nothing to do with fact or debate. Saul Alinsky would be proud.
Had you done your research, you would have found two types of testing done in the State of Colorado for the sole purpose of allowing sex offenders unsupervised access to their own children. The first is a sex-offense specific evaluation, in which the subject is tested to determine if there is any kind of sexual attraction toward children in general. If the subject "passes" this test, he moves on to the second - a Parental Risk Assessment (PRA). This, as the name implies, assesses the level of risk the children would be subjected to with unsupervised visitation. If the subject "passes" this, then he will more than likely be granted unsupervised visitation.
I do not believe any court in the state would even hear a case where these two sets of tests had not been administered and the subject found to have no sexual attraction to children (the sex offense specific tests) and found to be a low category of risk to his children (the PRA).
The fact the court is even considering this case leads me to believe this testing has been completed and "passed." (These are not "pass-fail" tests, according to SOMB guidelines. They are actually measures of levels of risk.) If this is the case, then unsupervised access to his children is a very high probability.
All Comments »
All content © Copyright 2013, The Colorado Springs Independent
Website powered by Foundation