How I interrogate abusers

 Many people around me now have an "abuse" trauma from search party activity dating back to 2011 in the Ocean City, Maryland area and the Reading, Pennsylvania area. Many are worried about how I might interrogate them. 

It says in John 7:24 KJV:

Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.

The Greek root word translated "judge" and "judgment" is κρινο (Latin: krinó) and refers to courtroom procedure and judgment, namely the presumption of innocence beyond a reasonable doubt, with superficial judgment based on the concept of seeing the world "beyond what the eye can see", meaning people appear a certain way on the surface, yet there may be more to the story behind the scenes, but since you don't know those circumstances, you are either to investigate or let go, depending on revictimization of any children or other victims involved.

I do have that personality, meaning I am not a cop, but someone with the law enforcement personality traits of a police officer. Much of these concerning parenting and raising children are turned inward, with my righteous judgment in relation to children being one of a silent witness. A witness of horrific circumstances, of domestic terrorism in the name of "reasonable chastisement"...I try to focus on my own issues, and not so much the issues of others, but I do witness evil committed against children in plain sight, with society looking the other way.

It says in 1 Corinthians 5:11 KJV:

But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man be called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolator, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with one an no not to eat.

"Be called a brother" refers to fellow Christians, meaning fellow believers. I am under no obligation to issue a ban on an atheist, as per biblical law, but I generally ban atheists who insist harm and abuse towards me, when I have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. I shun all abusers, regardless of faith, but see Christianity as a closed community open to newcomers, but closed nonetheless in terms of forceful proselytization, as such would be antisocial "help"/"religion".

I start, roughly, by ignoring the parent, by default, and presuming innocence or guilt depending on the nature of the infraction in relation to a child. If there is room to interview, I ask their stance on corporal punishment, and examine, through what they are actually saying, what they are actually saying, and if they defend it as a "right", I shun them in some way, using anti-existence concepts. A punitive parent shall not exist within my periphery of perception, meaning anywhere in my midst. If an abuser ceases to say anything to me, or show their presence to me in any way, they don't exist, subjectively. Objectively, they do, away from me.

The most stringent limitation I impose on anyone is one I can only impose in real life, and not online - refusing to eat with an adversary, either passively or actively. Much of law enforcement is passive and for the defendant to notice, meaning pro-social disappearance - I leave you out of nowhere, and without warning, and if you want an explanation, contact me somehow and I'll give you a piece of my mind. Either that or someone will calmly yet convictingly explain how I was hurt by what you did. This runs on the premise that bringing out the law is rare, and usually, brushing off insults or offenses is what I should do. I do brush off personal slights, but take a note of them in the case that they are repeated in nature, and carry entitled intent to intimidate. Then, the police see all of the rapture evidence against the abuser(s). I do not call the police over every little thing because many things can be resolved at home, and I take on conflict not simply to battle, but because that's the only reason for a solution. It is sitting a parent or relative down in the case of an outside party being abusive...But if I refuse to eat with you, you have done wrong in my book. This means refusing to sit at the table, or perhaps more likely refusing to attend an invitation, as a form of pro-social boycott.

As per the VirPed board, I deem certain groups victim groups, and others abuser groups. Focus on the Family is an abuser group, whereas VirPed is a victim group. On VirPed, all accounts are presumed to be non-entitled adults, meaning from non-entitled pedophilic adults, by default. We can look inward at the text, and marvel at who may live behind that account, and what life they may conduct, but we don't know anything besides what they say, and so we can go on what they say about themselves, since it is a mental health support board, but I myself factor in things such as remorseful attitudes in parents and adults who abuse children. The interrogation would start as mimicking a mental health professional friendly to non-offending pedophiles, but if the abuse was defended, the procedure would be complete turnover. Entitlement, with sexual abusers, starts with "how would you feel if the child/victim made a report him/herself", and if they made a snide remark, they'd be entitled. If they simply wanted treatment, I'd point them in that direction, but at the same time accept the victim's wish, if at all, to report the sick bastard who, yes, I have to represent as guilty yet remorseful...Most pedophiles are victims of abuse, not child abusers, with 3 out of 4 pedophilic adults not abusing children.

The depraved and entitled parents/adults will BURN!