No Animated GIFs Mormon Church Leader, Accused In Penis-Biting Attack

[Jayden]

Prosecutors in northern Utah filed charges Tuesday against Efrey Guzman, a Latter-Day Saints church leader accused of biting a man's penis after assaulting his mother and sister.

Guzman, 46, of Sandy, was charged in open court with "aggravated sexual assault, aggravated burglary, both first-degree felonies, and sexual abuse of a child and forcible sexual abuse, both second-degree felonies," Bob Scott, a spokesman for the Salt Lake County District Attorney's Office, told The Huffington Post.

According to the arrest affidavit, Guzman went to the home of a 13-year-old girl on May 8. During his visit with the girl, who later described him to police as a "family friend," he assaulted her by attempting to kiss her and grab her buttocks. When the girl's 20-year-old brother entered the room he left, police said. The authorities were not immediately notified of the alleged assault.

On Aug. 2, Guzman returned to the teenager's home. When the girl's mom asked him to leave, he refused, police said.

"The defendant pushed his way into the residence and began to assault the mother," the arrest affidavit reads. "She yelled for help and tried to fight the defendant off. She said the defendant ripped her shirt exposing her breast."

Guzman was allegedly groping the woman when her son came into the room and witnessed what was occurring. It was when the young man attempted to intervene, police say, Guzman viciously assaulted him.

"While he tried to get the defendant off his mother, the defendant grabbed his penis through his boxer shorts and bit his penis causing severe damage that required surgery," the arrest affidavit reads.

SOURCE

 

[ShihTzuTylenol]

godamn it, I had the perfect animated gif!

 

[Kabluey]

^ although, if he was a priest, teacher, youth leader, local politician, or anyone else expected to provide a moral compass of sorts for his community, then that would also be newsworthy by the same standards, even if it was due to some sort of break down.

 

[HoodedRat]

GIFs or it didn't happen.

 

[bankside]

I give the Huffington Post a fail on this one, as the bigotry is incomplete -- it lacks racism.

The article clearly calls out his role as branch president without stating how it had any bearing on his attack, or the correlation of the two facts. He was also Latino, but the reporter failed to banner the article, "Formerly Legal Latino Mormon Branch President Becomes Illegal During Crazed Sexual Assault."

Linking the sexual assault to the LDS church is overtly bigoted. There are sexual assaults every day in this country, but headlines don't read "Methodist Banker Becomes Deranged and Attacks Four."

The attacks were deplorable, but so was the write-up. It doesn't sound like he was somehow subtle and abusing his church office to covertly intimidate members of his ward; it sounds like he had some sort of mental breakdown and proceeded to openly assault an adolescent girl in the presence of her family. Not clear how the church tie is relevant.

He could have been the local State Farm Insurance affiliate, but the Post would have been very unlikely to link that to his attack and imply any relevance.

A church leader typically occupies himself with moral instruction. It is on its face relevant by that reason alone to mention his position.

It is also relevant within the larger context of deliberate cover-ups of child sexual abuse by members of religious orders. I don't know whether church leaders are more likely than others to sexually abuse children, but they do have a track record of covering it up in one country after another. By comparison, whatever else international investment bankers have done wrong, we've never yet seen them cover up a network of child abusers like the churches have. "Goldman Sachs discretely transfers 20 accused molesters to Bear Stearns" is not a realistic headline.

 

[Jayden]

A church leader typically occupies himself with moral instruction. It is on its face relevant by that reason alone to mention his position.

It is also relevant within the larger context of deliberate cover-ups of child sexual abuse by members of religious orders. I don't know whether church leaders are more likely than others to sexually abuse children, but they do have a track record of covering it up in one country after another. By comparison, whatever else international investment bankers have done wrong, we've never yet seen them cover up a network of child abusers like the churches have. "Goldman Sachs discretely transfers 20 accused molesters to Bear Stearns" is not a realistic headline.

Very well said.

 

[Just_Believe18]

Thank you, backside, for clarifying it up for Hard-up1.

What a horrifying story. I'm glad that monster is behind bars.

 

[Jayden]

Thank you, backside, for clarifying it up for Hard-up1.

What a horrifying story. I'm glad that monster is behind bars.

Same here.

 

[ravenstar]

Am I the only bastard on here that thought "I'll kiss it better" as soon as I read the thread title before actually opening the thread and reading the story?

And to the story, that guy sounds like an out and out predator who I severely hope gets his cock bitten off in prison. And no, I won't be offering to kiss his pecker better.

 

[gsdx]

What he did is reprehensible, and criminal, even if he is somehow mentally unbalanced. But, his LDS position is not relevant.

It's relevant when he is a sexual predator who is placed in a position of wholesomeness and trust, someone who is supposed not supposed to even think such thoughts, yet preys upon the young and innocent who look up to him and trust him to be God's representative. The same goes for the Catholic priests who prey upon young boys in their charge. The same goes for television ministers who get caught in motel rooms with hookers.

Their actions are doubly despicable because of their positions. 'Local Goldman Sachs' agents aren't in that position of trust and care, so it is your analogy which is irrelevant.

Readers may have read the article if only the name 'Efrey Guzman' was used, but linking that name with 'Mormon Church Leader' makes people sit up and take notice. It makes them seriously think about how the church uses religion as a shield against the crimes they commit against children in their trust and care, and it prompts them to take action in order to see that no other child is subjected to such deceptions.

The man may forget the bite. The mother may forget the assault. But that girl will never, ever forget what the man who she trusted with her life did to her. That deserves special mention.

Maybe the LDS doesn't have a recorded history of abuse, but the church leader might. We just might not know about it yet.

Religious leaders such as Guzman are constantly proclaiming how 'holier-than-thou' they are, yet they are no different than the lowliest of criminals who prey upon innocent children. They deserve to have their position in the church proclaimed to the world right alongside of their despicable crime.

 

[Kabluey]

^ Non-religious leaders - company owners, as well as people like doctors, lawyers, principals, lawmakers, etc would attract the same kind of attention and newsworthiness if they committed a similar act. Each deals with people and moral leadership.
I don't see the reporting of the man's religion inconsistent . The same publications would disclose the identity of any company whose leader had acted inappropriately to provide context.

 

[gsdx]

In a less biased coverage, the banner would have been more generic, like "Bizarre Attack on Local Family."

It's no different than all the headlines which begin with 'Catholic Priest Accused...'

I've never read any complaints about headlines featuring priests being biased.

This 'LDS church leader' abused a young girls. It's bad enough when some stranger does it. It's worse when the girl knows and trusts someone who, according to the Bible, isn't supposed to do such things.

I really don't understand your reasoning. It's the truth. It's not libel or anything. 'LDS church leader' is no different than 'lawyer' or 'policeman' or 'accountant' or 'landscaper' or any other occupation you want to stick in there, yet they are stuck in headlines thousands and thousands of times a day. There is no difference. It's not bias.

 

[yeahright1991]

Well damn.

 

[bankside]

It's no different than all the headlines which begin with 'Catholic Priest Accused...'

I've never read any complaints about headlines featuring priests being biased.

This 'LDS church leader' abused a young girls. It's bad enough when some stranger does it. It's worse when the girl knows and trusts someone who, according to the Bible, isn't supposed to do such things.

I really don't understand your reasoning. It's the truth. It's not libel or anything. 'LDS church leader' is no different than 'lawyer' or 'policeman' or 'accountant' or 'landscaper' or any other occupation you want to stick in there, yet they are stuck in headlines thousands and thousands of times a day. There is no difference. It's not bias.

There is a sound principle being invoked. It is irritating to hear people talk about being "panhandled by a drunk guy" when it is someone white, but "panhandled by a drunken indian" when it is someone aboriginal. Yes, that may be factually true, but without a good reason for pointing out the additional demographic information when it wouldn't otherwise be stated, it is only relevant through the lens of prejudice.

The principle as hard-up1 is invoking it, however, is misapplied. It is a significant story that a person claiming moral authority is found departing so wildly from moral sanity. And it is significant in the context of other similar religious stories.

Anyway I'd argue with the contention that this is a one-off; the abuse of children running through Mormonism is evident just by watching "8: The Mormon Proposition" or even a drama like "Latter Days." Clearly this is a religion struggling and failing with sexual morality in general.

And I'd argue that it shouldn't get a free pass from being considered along with other religions who are abusive on an industrial scale, such as catholicism. Informally, they are connected in any discussion of "abuse within the religious sphere." And they are even connected formally through joint ecumenical efforts; despite differences over theology they move beyond just mutual recognition to mutual effort and exchange.

Finally, certainly they mentioned the NHL in cases of abuse of several former players; Sheldon Kennedy, Theo Fleury, etc. And they mentioned Penn State in the exposé of the sordid goings on there. So if sports can be mentioned, there is nothing but some kind of circling-the-wagons mentality amongst the religiously-inclined that would justify suppressing the religious dimension of this story. Yes; journalists get to report on uncomfortable connections that are disquieting to the faithful. Oh well.

 

[gsdx]

There is a sound principle being invoked. It is irritating to hear people talk about being "panhandled by a drunk guy" when it is someone white, but "panhandled by a drunken indian" when it is someone aboriginal. Yes, that may be factually true, but without a good reason for pointing out the additional demographic information when it wouldn't otherwise be stated, it is only relevant through the lens of prejudice.

You're comparing race with occupation. There is no comparison between the two.

 

[rareboy]

Thank you, bankside, for clarifying it up for Hard-up1.

What a horrifying story. I'm glad that monster is behind bars.

Fixed it for you.

It is much more eye popping if you read it as originally written...lol.

and of course...I hope they can get this violent paedophile mental health help.

 

[frankfrank]

"bankside"

Hmmm...I dobn't understand...

I agree with most people in here (and, therefore, disagree with hardup1), as one has to ASSUME that a lot of people don't have (or won't take) the time to actually read the ARTICLE. When there's an organization (such as the LDS Church) which proclaims itself to be the absolute paragon of morality and truth, and somebody devoutly AND ACTIVELY OR PUBLICLY allied to that organization fucks shit up, it's time to call that person (or group) out as representative(s) of that group.

What would have happened if there had NEVER been any article ever published, mentioning "Catholic" or 'Priest(s)" in the headline/title, regarding the sexual abuse of children? Many people would have just skipped over the articles as "Oh, just another article about sex abuse, what else is new?" or "Oh, that happened to somebody else, it will never affect ME" and many people would have no clue that the Catholic Church was involved in anything nefarious at all.

This sort of naming is deserved when the bad behaviour comes from somebody within a group where good behaviour and moral straightforwardness is expected. In short, this involves groups where people have very real power and/or influence over others. Examples of such groups where people wield powers over other people include such groups as:

Catholic and LDS (and many other) churches
politicians, important bureaucrats
attorneys
police, Judges, tax collection, etc. (enforcement)
......In the case of police, ALL cops are "public representatives" of the profession, & are accountable
bank[st]ers, portfolio managers, brokers... (finance)
medical professionals, hospitals, etc.
insurance scamsters
journalists and journalistic sources (think: Fox News)


This list isn't necessarily complete, but these are professions where it can be properly expected that they be MORALLY UPRIGHT AND TRUTHFUL. This generally applies, more, to people who have higher visibility and/or do more than merely participate passively in that organization or profession. For example, a politician who has never successfully been elected to office, or a Mormon who merely goes to Temple for occasional services and does not tithe, does not deserve a headline like "SPOKANE MORMON INVOLVED IN HUGE SCAM." This guy, however, was actively involved with the LDS Church, and he was somewhat a public figure (I guess), and whatever reputation he puts out there will follow him.

Speaking of this sort of thing, does anybody remember how quickly the story about Bill O'Reilly (of THE O'REILLY FACTOR on Fox News) stalking and (I think, as I recall) threatening blackmail on a woman a few years ago, got so completely and quickly buried? If it had instead been somebody like Ed Schultz, the right-wing media and especially talk radio would still be yammering about it when everybody in here is OLD. I don't think that Rush Limbaugh ever said as much as Word One about it.

 

[frankfrank]

does anybody remember how quickly the story about Bill O'Reilly (of THE O'REILLY FACTOR on Fox News) stalking and (I think, as I recall) threatening blackmail on a woman a few years ago, got so completely and quickly buried? If it had instead been somebody like Ed Schultz, the right-wing media and especially talk radio would still be yammering about it when everybody in here is OLD. I don't think that Rush Limbaugh ever said as much as Word One about it.

CASES IN POINT.

Consider the shoe that is definitely on the other foot: Some of the right-wing will NOT let Barack Obama's long-ago college friendship with Bill Ayers go, even though it happened decades ago. (And what has been mentioned in what "liberal media" there is, has been to counter it.) I think, for example, what somebody egregiously did with a dog in recent times may be more TELLING of character than which friend somebody chose to hang with thirty years ago. The right-wingers have never let go of the Clinton/Monica Lewinsky story, either, and that's now a generation ago.

 

[ShihTzuTylenol]

"bankside"

Hmmm...I dobn't understand...

I agree with most people in here (and, therefore, disagree with hardup1), as one has to ASSUME that a lot of people don't have (or won't take) the time to actually read the ARTICLE. When there's an organization (such as the LDS Church) which proclaims itself to be the absolute paragon of morality and truth, and somebody devoutly AND ACTIVELY OR PUBLICLY allied to that organization fucks shit up, it's time to call that person (or group) out as representative(s) of that group.

What would have happened if there had NEVER been any article ever published, mentioning "Catholic" or 'Priest(s)" in the headline/title, regarding the sexual abuse of children? Many people would have just skipped over the articles as "Oh, just another article about sex abuse, what else is new?" or "Oh, that happened to somebody else, it will never affect ME" and many people would have no clue that the Catholic Church was involved in anything nefarious at all.

This sort of naming is deserved when the bad behaviour comes from somebody within a group where good behaviour and moral straightforwardness is expected. In short, this involves groups where people have very real power and/or influence over others. Examples of such groups where people wield powers over other people include such groups as:

Catholic and LDS (and many other) churches
politicians, important bureaucrats
attorneys
police, Judges, tax collection, etc. (enforcement)
......In the case of police, ALL cops are "public representatives" of the profession, & are accountable
bank[st]ers, portfolio managers, brokers... (finance)
medical professionals, hospitals, etc.
insurance scamsters
journalists and journalistic sources (think: Fox News)


This list isn't necessarily complete, but these are professions where it can be properly expected that they be MORALLY UPRIGHT AND TRUTHFUL. This generally applies, more, to people who have higher visibility and/or do more than merely participate passively in that organization or profession. For example, a politician who has never successfully been elected to office, or a Mormon who merely goes to Temple for occasional services and does not tithe, does not deserve a headline like "SPOKANE MORMON INVOLVED IN HUGE SCAM." This guy, however, was actively involved with the LDS Church, and he was somewhat a public figure (I guess), and whatever reputation he puts out there will follow him.

Speaking of this sort of thing, does anybody remember how quickly the story about Bill O'Reilly (of THE O'REILLY FACTOR on Fox News) stalking and (I think, as I recall) threatening blackmail on a woman a few years ago, got so completely and quickly buried? If it had instead been somebody like Ed Schultz, the right-wing media and especially talk radio would still be yammering about it when everybody in here is OLD. I don't think that Rush Limbaugh ever said as much as Word One about it.

....Frank, dude, I submit you should receive an honorary Ph.D in Multiple Perspective Analysis.... just imagine....we'll all get to call you doctor frankfrank

 

[bankside]

Fixed it for you.

It is much more eye popping if you read it as originally written...lol.

and of course...I hope they can get this violent paedophile mental health help.

Thank you rareboy. Though evidently I also answer to "backside." Actually I found it endearing in a slightly naughty way.