Mom too meek to stop fatal beating of son in church

[Tennesseer]

Something is terribly wrong with this religious sect.

Mom too meek to stop fatal beating of son in church

NEW HARTFORD, N.Y. — A woman charged with beating her teenage son to death inside a church felt helpless to stop an intervention that spiraled into violent punishment by others, her lawyer said Thursday.

Deborah Leonard stands charged with manslaughter in the death of her 19-year-old son, Lucas, but her lawyer Devin Garramone, said he believed other people caused the fatal injuries. Six people have been arrested in the beatings of Lucas and his 17-year-old brother, Christopher, who were pummeled with fists and kicked at the Word of Life church in New Hartford during what police have described as a spiritual counseling session to urge them to confess their sins and seek forgiveness.

Like police, Garramone said he wasn't certain what supposed conduct led to the encounter Sunday night. But he said Deborah Leonard "had no idea how far it would be taken" and didn't have the emotional strength to oppose others in a church where she'd worshipped for 30 years.

"It looks like she went along with it, and it spun out of control," he said. "This woman is so meek and timid, she didn't have the temerity to stand up to them and say, 'You're not punishing my kid. You're not doing this.'"

Full story here: Mom too meek to stop fatal beating of son in church

[Gardening Grandma]

Religions like that teach females from a young age to be submissive.  Her actions, sad as they were, are not surprising.   Now the media will probably demonize her.

[Tennesseer]

Oct 15, 2015 16:47:28 GMT -5 Gardening Grandma said:

Religions like that teach females from a young age to be submissive.  Her actions, sad as they were, are not surprising.   Now the media will probably demonize her.

So will our court system.

[Gardening Grandma]

Yes.  I'm not excusing her behavior; But I've seen how females can be brainwashed to be submissive.  It's also possible, that had she tried to stop them, they might have turned on her.
Now, her husband has no excuse whatsoever.

[The Captain]

Really?  That gives her a free pass?

It is a fundamental truth that a mother is supposed to protect their children.

Sins of omission are just as bad as sins of commission.

[Gardening Grandma]

I said nothing about a free pass.  I think I made it clear that understanding a behavior is not the same as excusing it.  I don't know how familiar you are with churches like that, but brainwashing from childhood can be very effective.

[The Captain]

I'm pretty familiar with churches like that.  In fact people leave them all the time because they find the teachings to be fundamentally flawed.

As a parent mother I would never stand by and let anyone beat my child to death while there was breath in my body.  Protection of your children is something that's hardwired into both humans and animals to ensure the survival of the species. 

She's being charged with manslaughter, and by my read of the article she actually participated in the beating.  She actively took part in beating her own child.  Let me repeat that - she actively took part in beating her own child to death.

No way in hell would I want the "I'm too meek to not beat my child" line of bull to ever become a valid defense. 

This is pathetic.  Her son is dead because she did nothing to stop it and in fact participated in the act.

I also note we're very willing to give the poor meek woman a buy because she's obviously incapable of taking care of her own weak woman mind.  Her husband, subject to the same supposed brainwashing and mind control doesn't get a buy, however, because he should have been able to throw off the shackles of the church's teaching.

No, there's no double standard around here.

[Deleted]

Oct 15, 2015 17:35:39 GMT -5 The Captain said:

I'm pretty familiar with churches like that.  In fact people leave them all the time because they find the teachings to be fundamentally flawed.

As a parent mother I would never stand by and let anyone beat my child to death while there was breath in my body.  Protection of your children is something that's hardwired into both humans and animals to ensure the survival of the species. 

She's being charged with manslaughter, and by my read of the article she actually participated in the beating.  She actively took part in beating her own child.  Let me repeat that - she actively took part in beating her own child to death.

No way in hell would I want the "I'm too meek to not beat my child" line of bull to ever become a valid defense. 

This is pathetic.  Her son is dead because she did nothing to stop it and in fact participated in the act.

I also note we're very willing to give the poor meek woman a buy because she's obviously incapable of taking care of her own weak woman mind.  Her husband, subject to the same supposed brainwashing and mind control doesn't get a buy, however, because he should have been able to throw off the shackles of the church's teaching.

No, there's no double standard around here.

I don't think anyone here is giving the husband a pass.

But I do want to point out that his brainwashing would have been entirely different from the mother's... because he's the man of the family... and religious brainwashing of this type usually involves portraying the women as meek and the men as strong at all costs.

[Gardening Grandma]

Oct 15, 2015 17:35:39 GMT -5 The Captain said:

I'm pretty familiar with churches like that.  In fact people leave them all the time because they find the teachings to be fundamentally flawed.

As a parent mother I would never stand by and let anyone beat my child to death while there was breath in my body.  Protection of your children is something that's hardwired into both humans and animals to ensure the survival of the species. 

She's being charged with manslaughter, and by my read of the article she actually participated in the beating.  She actively took part in beating her own child.  Let me repeat that - she actively took part in beating her own child to death.

No way in hell would I want the "I'm too meek to not beat my child" line of bull to ever become a valid defense. 

This is pathetic.  Her son is dead because she did nothing to stop it and in fact participated in the act.

I also note we're very willing to give the poor meek woman a buy because she's obviously incapable of taking care of her own weak woman mind.  Her husband, subject to the same supposed brainwashing and mind control doesn't get a buy, however, because he should have been able to throw off the shackles of the church's teaching.

No, there's no double standard around here.

Not a double standard when women are trained, from childhood,mto be submissive to men.  The men do not receive that kind of brainwashing.
I did not read, anywhete, that she took an active part. Rather that she failed to step in. May I have a link please?

[weltschmerz]

Manslaughter? It should be murder.

[Opti]

Peace to the boy and his surviving brother.

It appears 3 of the 6 people were family.

From the link:

She and her husband — the boys' father, Bruce Leonard — have pleaded not guilty to manslaughter. Four other people, including the victims' 33-year-old sister, Sarah Ferguson, have pleaded not guilty to assault. Lawyers for the father and the sister haven't commented.

[The Captain]

Oct 15, 2015 20:18:43 GMT -5 Gardening Grandma said:

Oct 15, 2015 17:35:39 GMT -5 The Captain said:

I'm pretty familiar with churches like that.  In fact people leave them all the time because they find the teachings to be fundamentally flawed.

As a parent mother I would never stand by and let anyone beat my child to death while there was breath in my body.  Protection of your children is something that's hardwired into both humans and animals to ensure the survival of the species. 

She's being charged with manslaughter, and by my read of the article she actually participated in the beating.  She actively took part in beating her own child.  Let me repeat that - she actively took part in beating her own child to death.

No way in hell would I want the "I'm too meek to not beat my child" line of bull to ever become a valid defense. 

This is pathetic.  Her son is dead because she did nothing to stop it and in fact participated in the act.

I also note we're very willing to give the poor meek woman a buy because she's obviously incapable of taking care of her own weak woman mind.  Her husband, subject to the same supposed brainwashing and mind control doesn't get a buy, however, because he should have been able to throw off the shackles of the church's teaching.

No, there's no double standard around here.

Not a double standard when women are trained, from childhood,mto be submissive to men.  The men do not receive that kind of brainwashing.
I did not read, anywhete, that she took an active part. Rather that she failed to step in. May I have a link please?

From the original article in the OP:

Deborah Leonard stands charged with manslaughter in the death of her 19-year-old son, Lucas, but her lawyer Devin Garramone, said he believed other people caused the fatal injuries.

Look up the legal definition for manslaughter.  You will find that it is not a charge that is brought against bystanders.  That, in addition to the above statement by the woman's own lawyer tells me she participated in the beatings.

Yea, she beat her own son, she just isn't the one who killed him.

And hell yes it is a double standard.  You give the woman a buy because she can't overcome her "conditioning" but then stated:

Now, her husband has no excuse whatsoever.

Why does she get understanding for not going against church programming but the husband has "no excuse whatsoever".

[The Captain]

Oct 15, 2015 19:08:47 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Oct 15, 2015 17:35:39 GMT -5 The Captain said:

I'm pretty familiar with churches like that.  In fact people leave them all the time because they find the teachings to be fundamentally flawed.

As a parent mother I would never stand by and let anyone beat my child to death while there was breath in my body.  Protection of your children is something that's hardwired into both humans and animals to ensure the survival of the species. 

She's being charged with manslaughter, and by my read of the article she actually participated in the beating.  She actively took part in beating her own child.  Let me repeat that - she actively took part in beating her own child to death.

No way in hell would I want the "I'm too meek to not beat my child" line of bull to ever become a valid defense. 

This is pathetic.  Her son is dead because she did nothing to stop it and in fact participated in the act.

I also note we're very willing to give the poor meek woman a buy because she's obviously incapable of taking care of her own weak woman mind.  Her husband, subject to the same supposed brainwashing and mind control doesn't get a buy, however, because he should have been able to throw off the shackles of the church's teaching.

No, there's no double standard around here.

I don't think anyone here is giving the husband a pass.

But I do want to point out that his brainwashing would have been entirely different from the mother's... because he's the man of the family... and religious brainwashing of this type usually involves portraying the women as meek and the men as strong at all costs.

Richard - read what I wrote again. I'm not even hinting that anyone is giving the husband a pass. I'm calling out the hypocrisy of giving a woman a pass because she supposedly is held hostage by church conditioning but stating the husband is absolutely responsible despite being supposedly subject to the same horrific unable-to-overcome conditioning.

I may not be clear here, in no way am I suggesting anyone should get a buy.  Also, if IF the whole brainwashing thing does even hold water, I doubt highly that a teaching is you should beat your children to death. I will go even further to say that IF that was a teaching, then it goes against the laws of society and we all know that ignorance of the law is no excuse.

[midjd]

Why does she get understanding for not going against church programming but the husband has "no excuse whatsoever".

Because the husband's programming likely didn't require him to always submit to the opposite gender and those in positions of authority? There is brainwashing going on for both genders, but what they're trained to do (and put up with) is very different.

IMO the only double standard is against the mother for not stopping the beating despite being "hardwired" to do so. Is the father not also biologically driven to protect his child? 

If brainwashing didn't skew the natural order of things (including the biological drive to protect one's children), it wouldn't be nearly as effective... 

[midjd]

I don't know if it is what this church subscribes to, but the Michael Pearl book "To Train Up A Child" advocates striking children as young as 8mos old with a switch to teach them obedience. When they get older, you beat them on a bare butt until they submit to you. They're not teaching that you should beat your child "to death," (although it has happened), so until you cause significant damage, it's legal.  

whynottrainachild.com/2010/04/20/quotes-from-ttuac/

[The Captain]

Oct 16, 2015 8:51:35 GMT -5 midjd said:

Why does she get understanding for not going against church programming but the husband has "no excuse whatsoever".

Because the husband's programming likely didn't require him to always submit to the opposite gender and those in positions of authority? There is brainwashing going on for both genders, but what they're trained to do (and put up with) is very different.

IMO the only double standard is against the mother for not stopping the beating despite being "hardwired" to do so. Is the father not also biologically driven to protect his child? 

If brainwashing didn't skew the natural order of things (including the biological drive to protect one's children), it wouldn't be nearly as effective... 

No where did I write that only the mother had an obligation to protect her child so please don't try to twist what I wrote to imply such. 

Yes the father had an obligation to do so, and I'm holding him just as accountable for his actions as I'm holding her for hers.

[The Captain]

Let me ask a question.  If we had a woman in an abusive relationship where the man harmed the children and she stood by and let it happen, would we be as forgiving?

Let's take it a step further and say that she actually participated because she was afraid he's hit her if she didn't.

Now who here would support that monster...I'll wait for an affirmative.

[midjd]

Oct 16, 2015 9:05:17 GMT -5 The Captain said:

Oct 16, 2015 8:51:35 GMT -5 midjd said:

Because the husband's programming likely didn't require him to always submit to the opposite gender and those in positions of authority? There is brainwashing going on for both genders, but what they're trained to do (and put up with) is very different.

IMO the only double standard is against the mother for not stopping the beating despite being "hardwired" to do so. Is the father not also biologically driven to protect his child? 

If brainwashing didn't skew the natural order of things (including the biological drive to protect one's children), it wouldn't be nearly as effective... 

No where did I write that only the mother had an obligation to protect her child so please don't try to twist what I wrote to imply such. 

Yes the father had an obligation to do so, and I'm holding him just as accountable for his actions as I'm holding her for hers.

No twisting intended. I was just curious as to why you struck out "parent" in your first post and replaced it with "mother," and also posted that "it is a fundamental truth that a mother is supposed to protect their children."

I don't think either of them gets a pass, and I don't think you do either, but when only the mother's obligation to the child is mentioned (despite the father being charged with the same crime), it does tend to read that way.

[thyme4change]

Oct 15, 2015 16:58:28 GMT -5 The Captain said:

Really?  That gives her a free pass?

It is a fundamental truth that a mother is supposed to protect their children.

Sins of omission are just as bad as sins of commission.

She was protecting him.  The loving members of her church were showing him the dire nature of his sin, and this was an act of tough love went wrong.  A little physical pain is nothing compared to the demons of hell he would face if he did not repent.  This was a necessary act.  They were all doing the right thing.

I went to perfectly normal churches - standard Presbyterian, among others.  Nothing crazy by our standards.  After I stopped going for a while, I thought about some of the language that the church uses (every religion.)  It didn't sound weird to me when god was a ruling principle in my life.  But once I stepped out of it, and heard the shit even normal christians use, I realized how bizarre the statements are.  If I heard all of the weird ass stuff they said and thought it was perfectly normal, why wouldn't someone else hear all the super-weird ass, ridiculous and dangerous stuff other places say and think it was correct.  They had probably heard it all their life.  How could they stop to question it?  

[The Captain]

Oct 16, 2015 9:12:33 GMT -5 midjd said:

Oct 16, 2015 9:05:17 GMT -5 The Captain said:

No where did I write that only the mother had an obligation to protect her child so please don't try to twist what I wrote to imply such. 

Yes the father had an obligation to do so, and I'm holding him just as accountable for his actions as I'm holding her for hers.

No twisting necessary. I was just curious as to why you struck out "parent" in your first post and replaced it with "mother," and also posted that "it is a fundamental truth that a mother is supposed to protect their children."

Ok, I see where you're coming from.  And yes, I will emphasize that I believe a mother should act much more protectively.  We actually carry our child in our own bodies for 9+ months.  We have a physical connection even before they're born.  We nurse our children at our breast.  All of these things a man will never be able to do so yes, I believe a mother should have more of a connection to their child than the father.  (and no - that does not give the mother unilateral or superior rights to the child).

And, not surprisingly -- we see this very clearly represented in society (I'm NOT excusing men's behavior by the way).  How many fatherless children are there out there as opposed to ones where the mother walked out on them?   

So yea, in an equal situation where both parents did harm to a child, I personally would believe the mother to be more of a monster than the father.  They're both monsters, though.

Now a guy may come in and counter argue me and say it's the man's job to protect the family - and since that's not a perspective I have I can't respond to it.  Maybe there's valid arguments on both sides but since I'm a chick I'll stick with mine.

[Tennesseer]

Oct 16, 2015 8:56:17 GMT -5 midjd said:

I don't know if it is what this church subscribes to, but the Michael Pearl book "To Train Up A Child" advocates striking children as young as 8mos old with a switch to teach them obedience. When they get older, you beat them on a bare butt until they submit to you. They're not teaching that you should beat your child "to death," (although it has happened), so until you cause significant damage, it's legal.  

whynottrainachild.com/2010/04/20/quotes-from-ttuac/

And we wonder the motive as to why a teen child or children occasionally kill their parents.

[happyhoix]

I'm curious to hear their reason for thinking the two boys had sinned. What reason was bad enough to merit beating one to death and the other into a hospital?

I have no doubt this kind of thing had happened before in this church - not deaths, but beatings of children. I would not be surprised to discover there is a single charismatic dominant male who has convinced the rest of them he is the only person who knows God's will and everyone else must comply with his edicts or go to hell.

A tragedy. I hope both parents are jailed for a very long time, and the daughter doesn't get her kids back - ever.  I also hope the community befriends this poor young man in the hospital and helps him restart his life away from the poisonous church that raised him.

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

Both parents should go to jail for a good long time. We're a species that needs two parents to survive.   The idea that only mothers have a nurturing instinct has long been debunked.  Unfortunately society has yet to pull it's head out its butt and get with the news, we're still bogged down in Victorian propaganda over proper roles for each gender.

My husband would kill anyone who touched our daughters. I am not sure which one of us would get there first.

Both parents should be charged and go to jail for a long time. 

It makes me ill to think there is any "religion" or "church" out there that condones the severe beating and deaths of children.  I am pretty sure Jesus would not approve of harming/killing the innocent.

[Tennesseer]

Oct 16, 2015 11:32:11 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

I'm curious to hear their reason for thinking the two boys had sinned. What reason was bad enough to merit beating one to death and the other into a hospital?

I have no doubt this kind of thing had happened before in this church - not deaths, but beatings of children. I would not be surprised to discover there is a single charismatic dominant male who has convinced the rest of them he is the only person who knows God's will and everyone else must comply with his edicts or go to hell.

A tragedy. I hope both parents are jailed for a very long time, and the daughter doesn't get her kids back - ever.  I also hope the community befriends this poor young man in the hospital and helps him restart his life away from the poisonous church that raised him.

This won't answer your question what sins the young man committed, but it is some additional information to the story.

Congregants Were Abused and Shamed, Ex-Member Says

[happyhoix]

Oct 16, 2015 11:40:10 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Oct 16, 2015 11:32:11 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

I'm curious to hear their reason for thinking the two boys had sinned. What reason was bad enough to merit beating one to death and the other into a hospital?

I have no doubt this kind of thing had happened before in this church - not deaths, but beatings of children. I would not be surprised to discover there is a single charismatic dominant male who has convinced the rest of them he is the only person who knows God's will and everyone else must comply with his edicts or go to hell.

A tragedy. I hope both parents are jailed for a very long time, and the daughter doesn't get her kids back - ever.  I also hope the community befriends this poor young man in the hospital and helps him restart his life away from the poisonous church that raised him.

This won't answer your question what sins the young man committed, but it is some additional information to the story.

Congregants Were Abused and Shamed, Ex-Member Says

And Bingo:

The founder and longtime pastor at Word of Life Christian Church shamed congregants from the pulpit, dredging up old sins and recounting them at Sunday services in humiliating detail, a former member said.

Sometimes the Devil tries hard to look like a man of God.

[Wisconsin Beth]

Oct 16, 2015 11:49:42 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

Oct 16, 2015 11:40:10 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

This won't answer your question what sins the young man committed, but it is some additional information to the story.

Congregants Were Abused and Shamed, Ex-Member Says

And Bingo:

The founder and longtime pastor at Word of Life Christian Church shamed congregants from the pulpit, dredging up old sins and recounting them at Sunday services in humiliating detail, a former member said.

Sometimes the Devil tries hard to look like a man of God.

But it also said he was dead and his wife was now leading. 

[The Captain]

Oct 16, 2015 12:05:38 GMT -5 Wisconsin Beth said:

Oct 16, 2015 11:49:42 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

And Bingo:

The founder and longtime pastor at Word of Life Christian Church shamed congregants from the pulpit, dredging up old sins and recounting them at Sunday services in humiliating detail, a former member said.

Sometimes the Devil tries hard to look like a man of God.

But it also said he was dead and his wife was now leading. 

Doesn't exactly jibe with a church where the women are taught to be submissive little followers, does it?

[Wisconsin Beth]

Oct 16, 2015 12:10:21 GMT -5 The Captain said:

Oct 16, 2015 12:05:38 GMT -5 Wisconsin Beth said:

But it also said he was dead and his wife was now leading. 

Doesn't exactly jibe with a church where the women are taught to be submissive little followers, does it?

Doesn't jibe with any church - leadership of a church isn't usually inherited in Christian faiths. 

[Wisconsin Beth]

Mr. Handville, who defected from the church in 2000 after a decade of praying and working there and who now lives in Phoenix, offered the first detailed public account since the teenager’s death of what happened behind the church’s locked gates and thick row of hedges.

“Everybody who’s gone there is a victim of abuse,” he said in a phone interview on Thursday. “This was a cult. This was not a church; I don’t care what words they use on the building. The spirit of that place was not freedom.”

Mr. Handville said he would sometimes arrive at the church after trying to spend time with his wife or children, or from working his day job, only to be forced into more hours of physical labor at the church. Depriving congregants of sleep appeared to be part of a plan to control them.

“They sleep-deprive you because you become open to suggestions, usually what they’re teaching you,” Mr. Handville said. “They’re breaking you down so they can build you up the way they want to.”

Mr. Irwin died several years ago. He handed leadership to his wife, who the authorities said was the current spiritual leader; congregants call her Mother.

Their daughter, Tiffanie Irwin, 29, is the pastor. The authorities said she called the teenage brothers to a counseling session at the church after Sunday services because she was concerned the older brother, Lucas Leonard, 19, would leave the church.

Mr. Handville recalled Bruce Leonard and his wife as frequent targets of Mr. Irwin’s abuse, even though he said the elder Mr. Leonard was a hard worker who loved his children and always made time for them.

“They were always on church discipline,” Mr. Handville said of the Leonards. “They were always bullied spiritually.”

He said church discipline meant that Mr. Irwin forbid other congregants to sit next to offenders at church, to talk them or to go to their houses for dinner.

“You were kind of being shamed or shunned, what Jerry would call out of a rebellious state,” Mr. Handville said. “He used that technique often.”

He said he never knew Mr. Irwin to strike or hurt members, and said he never saw anyone physically abused at the church.

from the 2nd link. 

[Wisconsin Beth]

And The Captain, I'm not really arguing.  My take on this is that it's a pretty fucked up place and that everyone who attended had issues.  and that everyone who was present during the beatings should be charged with whatever the law permits.  This is NOT right.