'sex offender' hysteria - play along at home!

[coleridge78]

http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/...-molest01.html

He tries to give this dumb kid a lesson that'll save her dumb life from being ended by her apparently underdeveloped survival instinct. And for his trouble, this is what he gets. Can the law get any stupider?

This is a real victory for the Nancy-Grace-loving nutters of America. Congratulations! Way to destroy people for the simple reason that you're unable to stop projecting your own sick fantasies on them! Sex offenders, my fucking ass.

[Gangster Octopus]

Didn't you know Cook County has the worlds most advanced PreCrime division in the world?

[Reeder]

Common sense.

RIP 20....

[coleridge78]

Originally Posted by Gangster Octopus

Didn't you know Cook County has the worlds most advanced PreCrime division in the world?

Oh, then all is well. As long as it's Tom Cruise at the helm, I'll just stay home and swoon... to the tune... of little aliens in June... (whoops, I'm a day late for that last part). Probably gauche to hijack my own thread on the third post. I'll stop now.

[tdn]

What possible purpose could this ruling serve? How is it of benefit for anybody? What possible motive could the judge have for making this ruling? Does he actually believe what's coming out of his own mouth?

[Scott Plaid]

It is not so much that is has a purpose, that it is required by the law, I suppose.

[tdn]

If the judge can not make a value judgement rather than blindly following the letter of the law, then he shouldn't be sitting on the bench.

[Bippy the Beardless]

Is it possible to sue the courts for defamation of character?
Maybe there is more to this case and it does make sense (like the guy tried to get the girl into his car) but somehow I doubt it.

[Liberal]

It almost harkens back to the 1980s, and some of the hysteria cases.

[coleridge78]

Originally Posted by Bippy the Beardless

Maybe there is more to this case and it does make sense (like the guy tried to get the girl into his car) but somehow I doubt it.

Most people who've had the bad fortune of being involved in a newspaper story will tell you that newspaper reporters seem to be horrible hacks who will put any spin on a story and don't seem to have problems inventing quotes out of thin air.

That said, I have to think the story is more-or-less accurate in the facts. If anything more than an arm grab had gone on, the media vultures (and opportunistic local authorities) would've played it up in "Watch as we crucify a leering prevert!" mode.

I think.

[Elenfair]

Let's hope the ACLU picks up his case...

[Metacom]

Originally Posted by tdn

If the judge can not make a value judgement rather than blindly following the letter of the law, then he shouldn't be sitting on the bench.

Gotta disagree with you here... If the law is wrong, the legislature should change it. Maybe by making a sex offense a necessary condition of being put on the sex offender registry, and then passing a bill to get this guy taken off it.

[coleridge78]

Originally Posted by Metacom

Gotta disagree with you here... If the law is wrong, the legislature should change it. Maybe by making a sex offense a necessary condition of being put on the sex offender registry, and then passing a bill to get this guy taken off it.

Yeah. I'm sure there'll be legislators lining up to be the ones who "weakened" "sex offender" laws.

I understand what you're saying, but... good luck.

[Mr. Blue Sky]

Originally Posted by coleridge78

Yeah. I'm sure there'll be legislators lining up to be the ones who "weakened" "sex offender" laws.

I understand what you're saying, but... good luck.

If anything, they'll modify the law, but it won't do this guy any good.

[Greathouse]

I am a parent have absolutely zero tolerance or sympathy for people who commit sex offenses against anyone, but especially children (as I am sure most people are). But, if the facts in the article are accurate, this really pisses me off. Is there anyone we can write to about this case? Would it do any good?

[Scott Plaid]

Originally Posted by Metacom

Gotta disagree with you here... If the law is wrong, the legislature should change it.

This sounds a little familiar.

[Ethilrist]

Originally Posted by tdn

What possible purpose could this ruling serve? How is it of benefit for anybody? What possible motive could the judge have for making this ruling? Does he actually believe what's coming out of his own mouth?

Well, he did say:

"I don't really see the purpose of registration in this case. I really don't," Morse said. "But I feel that I am constrained by the statute."

It's going to help ensure that this guy doesn't go around grabbing teenagers, but if he does, the DA'll be ready for him.

[Metacom]

Originally Posted by coleridge78

I understand what you're saying, but... good luck.

Oh, the system is most certainly fucked up, and sex offender hysteria is reaching a ridiculous degree, but I don't think that should give judges a license to use their own values as a guide instead of the law.

[AngelicGemma]

While grabbing a 14 year old stranger is unacceptable, making him register as a sex offender is completely over the top.

[clairobscur]

If I understand the article correctly, "unlawful restraint of a minor" is a sex offense, he did restrain her, so he's a sex offender, so he has to register as such.

It seems that the judge wasn't at fault. The statutes are.

[clairobscur]

Originally Posted by AngelicGemma

While grabbing a 14 year old stranger is unacceptable, making him register as a sex offender is completely over the top.

I completely disagree with grabbing a strange child being unacceptable. There are plenty of situations where it isn't.

I too am fed up with this hysteria about children.

[dropzone]

Originally Posted by The Sun Times

Recognizing the stigma that comes with being labeled as a sex offender, the appellate court said "it is [Barnaby's] actions which have caused him to be stigmatized, not the courts."

But the fact--FACT--that he did not commit a sex crime should--SHOULD--prevent him from being stigmatized.

This is sheer lunacy.

[dropzone]

--sheer--

[Finagle]

Originally Posted by clairobscur

If I understand the article correctly, "unlawful restraint of a minor" is a sex offense, he did restrain her, so he's a sex offender, so he has to register as such.

It seems that the judge wasn't at fault. The statutes are.

Isn't this a get-out-of-jail-free card for kids? Basically they can commit pretty much any petty offense (throwing snowballs at a car, breaking a window....). in years past you'd chase them down, grab them by the ear and lead them to their parent's house where they'd get a hiding. Now, if you can't restrain them, they can get away with anything unless you know them and where they live.

[Larry Borgia]

I guess what we all have to do is avoid all children not our own as if they were some species of dangerous animal. Do not initiate any contact unless the parent is there and gives consent. If approached by a child, back off, maintaining a five yard space between you and the child if possible.

[Cheesesteak]

The problem here is not the judge and it's not the statute, it's the DA.

Though Barnaby was acquitted of attempted kidnapping and child abduction charges stemming from the November 2002 incident, he was convicted of unlawful restraint of a minor -- which is a sex offense.

He grabbed someone by the arm and lectured them and was charged with attempted kidnapping/child abduction??? Hell, if you tried to kidnap a child and the state can nail you on unlawful restraint, that's OK, and the registration is at least understandable. The mere act of grabbing a person's arm should not be considered a crime of this magnatude. Where is the sense of perspective here?

[Miller]

Originally Posted by Larry Borgia

I guess what we all have to do is avoid all children not our own as if they were some species of dangerous animal.

Way ahead of you!

[The Hook]

Lesson of the day: Not going anywhere for a while? Grab a girl -er- Snickers bar.

Here's what he could've done. Hit the gas, hit the girl. File a complaint. "Unlawful vehicle and street restrain". Kid goes to jail.

[Guinastasia]

Originally Posted by Larry Borgia

I guess what we all have to do is avoid all children not our own as if they were some species of dangerous animal. Do not initiate any contact unless the parent is there and gives consent. If approached by a child, back off, maintaining a five yard space between you and the child if possible.

Now see, this is what I was talking about in the "Don't touch my baby!" thread. People said I was paranoid because I suggested that some moron might think a person was a pervert for tickeling baby's feet.

I'm not pleased though, to see my argument justified, though. No sir, I don't like it.

[clairobscur]

Originally Posted by Guinastasia

Now see, this is what I was talking about in the "Don't touch my baby!" thread. People said I was paranoid because I suggested that some moron might think a person was a pervert for tickeling baby's feet.
.

You're right. This is a great solution to the issue presented by the OP of this thread. She should have all the "baby-touchers" registered as sex offenders. That should be an efficient deterent.

[Silentgoldfish]

Originally Posted by The Hook

Lesson of the day: Not going anywhere for a while? Grab a girl -er- Snickers bar.

Here's what he could've done. Hit the gas, hit the girl. File a complaint. "Unlawful vehicle and street restrain". Kid goes to jail.

Joking aside it does seem that he would have been better served by hitting the kid; manslaughter may suck but it won't stigmatize your life like being a registered sex offender will.

[Guinastasia]

Originally Posted by clairobscur

You're right. This is a great solution to the issue presented by the OP of this thread. She should have all the "baby-touchers" registered as sex offenders. That should be an efficient deterent.

Right. That's EXACTLY what I was suggesting.




Maybe my point is, "Gee, people are really touchy nowadays, and ready to sue for just about anything, so perhaps we need a little dose of CYA?"

[Wolfian]

Originally Posted by Guinastasia

Right. That's EXACTLY what I was suggesting.

Psst.

Psst. I think (hope) she was joking.

[Frank]

Originally Posted by Wolfian

Psst.

Psst. I think (hope) she was joking.

clairobscur is a guy, and I definitely think that was sarcasm using guin's post as a jumping off point.

[Bryan Ekers]

Would knowingly having sex in the presence of a child count as an offence?

Since a fetus can be considered a victim of murder, would having sex with a pregnant woman (and in the presence of her fetus) make it a victim of a sex offense, as well?

How slippery in this slope?

[clairobscur]

Originally Posted by Guinastasia

Right. That's EXACTLY what I was suggesting.

I was just joking. Not stating that you suggested such a thing...

[Jaade]

Originally Posted by clairobscur

I completely disagree with grabbing a strange child being unacceptable. There are plenty of situations where it isn't.

I too am fed up with this hysteria about children.

Plenty of situations? I cannot think of plenty...I can think of a few where it could maybe be understandable, but not many.


I disagree with this case's outcome. I don't think this guy should be charged as a sex offender if everything the article says is true and as the man proclaims. However, I do think it is inappropriate for someone to jump out of a car and grab a person's arm that they don't know. If someone did that to me, we'd have a big issue. If they did it to my child, they would be in worse trouble. You just cannot go around grabbing children in today's world. No, you cannot grab a child and drag he or she down to his or her house if you don't know the kid. The world where you could do that was the world when serial killers were unheard of and random acts of violence were still shocking to all of us.

[Frank]

Originally Posted by Jaade

However, I do think it is inappropriate for someone to jump out of a car and grab a person's arm that they don't know. If someone did that to me, we'd have a big issue. If they did it to my child, they would be in worse trouble. You just cannot go around grabbing children in today's world. No, you cannot grab a child and drag he or she down to his or her house if you don't know the kid. The world where you could do that was the world when serial killers were unheard of and random acts of violence were still shocking to all of us.

When I was about eight or nine, I drove my bike across Little Creek Blvd against the light. The guy who slammed on his brakes jumped out and grabbed me before I could escape. Grabbed me hard - I had wiped out at the sound of the squeal, and was getting back on my bike - one might say he snatched my arm away from me. He demanded my address, and went there and told my mom. Is that all right to do to your kids in your world?

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Jaade

You just cannot go around grabbing children in today's world. No, you cannot grab a child and drag he or she down to his or her house if you don't know the kid. The world where you could do that was the world when serial killers were unheard of and random acts of violence were still shocking to all of us.

You sound like you're using the existence of hysteria to justify the hysteria.

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally Posted by This Year's Model

Is that all right to do to your kids in your world?

Well, unless you can demonstrate some actual harm was done to you... sure.

Did you ever bike against the lights again?

[clairobscur]

Originally Posted by Jaade

Plenty of situations? I cannot think of plenty...I can think of a few where it could maybe be understandable, but not many.
.

When kids do stupid things, that is harming other people or endangering themselves. And kids do plenty of stupid things. All the time.


Case in point : there's a 19th centuty moving bridge near my place. There are often kids doing all sort of stupid things when the bridge is being elevated, at the risk of being crushed by the wheels or cables, drowning or whatever else. Should adult bystanders let them do so?



I wouldn't have much issue with grabbing and chastizing a kid who is, say, damaging stuff, or insulting people, etc... either (let alone running in front of a car and putting himself, the driver and who knows who else in danger like in the linked article).



Last time I restrained a kid was precisely the example given in the article : two boys were fighting on a subway platform. They were maybe 12-14 yo. I separated them, and while another responsible adult psychopatic child abuser put one of them in the next train, I physically restrained the other who didn't want to give up and intended to climb in the same train and resume the fight. Should this other stranger and I have instead called the police and, while waiting, placed bets on the winner?

[Mr2001]

Originally Posted by Jaade

I disagree with this case's outcome. I don't think this guy should be charged as a sex offender if everything the article says is true and as the man proclaims. However, I do think it is inappropriate for someone to jump out of a car and grab a person's arm that they don't know. If someone did that to me, we'd have a big issue. If they did it to my child, they would be in worse trouble.

Agreed. Branding him a sex offender is ridiculous (frankly, I think the sex offender registry is flawed to begin with), but he shouldn't expect to go around grabbing people who don't want to be grabbed with no repercussions. You don't get to detain strangers and lecture them whenever you want just because they're under 18.

[Frank]

Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers

Well, unless you can demonstrate some actual harm was done to you... sure.

Did you ever bike against the lights again?

No.

But I'm asking Jaade, who would seem to have had an issue with it if I had been her kid.

[clairobscur]

Originally Posted by Jaade

No, you cannot grab a child and drag he or she down to his or her house if you don't know the kid. The world where you could do that was the world when serial killers were unheard of and random acts of violence were still shocking to all of us.

Why would this make difference?. If an adult is dragging your kid to your house because he, said, threw stones in the stranger's window, he obviously isn't a child abuser/abducter/serial killer.


So, what yo propose to do in the various situations mentionned previously :

-strange kid passing the safety barriers of a moving bridge in order to have some fun jumping off from said moving bridge?

-strange kid damaging stuff in a public park and refusing to stop when told to do so?

-strange kid fighting another one in a subway station?


-strange kid throwing stones at your windows and running away?


-strange kid stealing stuff from your house/backyard/shop?


-Strange kid insisting on climbing on poles or in a closed stone quarry (that would be me when I was a kid)?


I think that it's the responsability of any adult not to let kids doing such things. It's a duty. If you disagre with this, then never stay more than 10 feets away from your kids, so that you can take care yourseklf of any issue. Maybe you do. But not everybody does.


Concerning the scare of abducters, serial killers, etc.... : this risk is ridiculously low. A kid is more likely to be killed during pretty much any everyday activity, even the most mundane ones than being abucted. Besides, the majority of sexual abuses of children isn't done by strangers, but by close relatives, neibhors, etc... So, the people should really be warry of if you're a mother aren't strangers but your husband, your father, your kid's coach, your friends, and so on.


Meanwhile, this hysteria is preventing adults from acting responsibly when children are in trouble or are causing touble, from interacting normally with kids (like say, speaking to them. You know... it used to be possible to speak to a child in bygone days), teachers are on the verge of filming any interaction they could have with a child (preferably only when at least a dozen witnesses are present) out of fear of being accused or even suspected of something ugly (and this is ven true for female teachers), and so on. There isn't anymore anything normal in adult/children interactions.


I remember a post last year by a mother who pitted a strange man who had the audacity of being sitted on a bench alone in the park where she brought her kids to play. Seriously, what could a man be doing in a park except trying to spot some undraged prey? We've reached this point. A point where your mere presence in a public place is in some people's mind an evidence of nefarious intents. That's plain hysteria, indeed.

[Mr2001]

Originally Posted by clairobscur

So, what yo propose to do in the various situations mentionned previously :
[snip]
I think that it's the responsability of any adult not to let kids doing such things. It's a duty. If you disagre with this, then never stay more than 10 feets away from your kids, so that you can take care yourseklf of any issue. Maybe you do. But not everybody does.

I don't think any adult has the duty, the responsibility, or even the right to physically restrain an unrelated person (regardless of age) who isn't in the process of committing a crime. Now, if someone is stealing from your home or your shop, you can use force to detain or eject him - whether he's 14 or 40. If he's vandalizing public property, you may be able to make a citizen's arrest. If not, or if he's simply putting himself in harm's way, then just tell him to knock it off, and call the police.

[clairobscur]

Originally Posted by Mr2001

I don't think any adult has the duty, the responsibility, or even the right to physically restrain an unrelated person (regardless of age) who isn't in the process of committing a crime. Now, if someone is stealing from your home or your shop, you can use force to detain or eject him - whether he's 14 or 40. If he's vandalizing public property, you may be able to make a citizen's arrest. If not, or if he's simply putting himself in harm's way, then just tell him to knock it off, and call the police.

So, basicaly, you're telling me that in the example I mentionned I should actually have let them fight, called the police and placed bets?


I can easily imagine the pitting resulting from an article stating : "kid kills himself doing (whatever stupid and dangerous thing). Dozens of bystanders look and do nothing to stop him" Mr. Smith declares :"I couldn't, in good conscience, grab his arm. This would have been very wrong". "We're proud of the good behavior of our law-abiding citizens in this delicate situation, Mayor says".


Yes, I do think, given that kids aren't generally considered as being able to make the smartest decisions, that it's a moral duty for any adult to keep an eye on them if their parents aren't present and to act when they put themlves in harm's way. Actually, being protective of children is a quite widespread gut reaction. And do not tell me that a parent isn't going to hate the guts of an adult who didn't do anything when his kid put himself in danger and was seriously harmed as a result.


In the other example I gave(the bridge), I assume the police would probably need at least a dozen minutes to come. In the third one (me climbing in a stone quarry), since it was a rural area, probably more like an hour or so. IOW, way too late to do anything. By this time the kid would be either safe or already drowned/crushed/in a pool of blood down the quarry.

[dropzone]

Originally Posted by Mr2001

I don't think any adult has the duty, the responsibility, or even the right to physically restrain an unrelated person (regardless of age) who isn't in the process of committing a crime.

(emphasis mine)

So if you saw someone commit a crime, be it jaywalking where she was nearly killed or murder, you cannot restrain her AFTER she finished committing the crime?





(Okay, I can't lose the image of Gomer yelling, "Citizen's ar-ray-ist! Citizen's ar-ray-ist!" but you get the idea.)

[Mr2001]

Originally Posted by clairobscur

So, basicaly, you're telling me that in the example I mentionned I should actually have let them fight, called the police and placed bets?

Called the police, yes. The ethics of placing bets on street fights is a subject for another thread.

Yes, I do think, given that kids aren't generally considered as being able to make the smartest decisions, that it's a moral duty for any adult to keep an eye on them if their parents aren't present and to act when they put themlves in harm's way.

Suppose I believe that you, clairobscur, aren't able to make the smartest decisions. Should I restrain you, over your protests, whenever you're about to do something I think you shouldn't do? (You don't smoke, do you? )

Actually, being protective of children is a quite widespread gut reaction. And do not tell me that a parent isn't going to hate the guts of an adult who didn't do anything when his kid put himself in danger and was seriously harmed as a result.

I don't think our gut reactions are necessarily good indicators of how we should act, and neither is the fear that someone might dislike us if we don't act. That parent would have no one to blame but his kid and/or himself.

In the other example I gave(the bridge), I assume the police would probably need at least a dozen minutes to come. In the third one (me climbing in a stone quarry), since it was a rural area, probably more like an hour or so. IOW, way too late to do anything. By this time the kid would be either safe or already drowned/crushed/in a pool of blood down the quarry.

And it would be his own fault, not yours. You aren't obligated to come and rescue everyone who puts himself in danger, no matter how old they are.

Originally Posted by dropzone

So if you saw someone commit a crime, be it jaywalking where she was nearly killed or murder, you cannot restrain her AFTER she finished committing the crime?

Ah, yes, indeed. You may also detain someone who has committed a serious crime until the police arrive. (Jaywalking doesn't count, as the unfortunate man in the OP found out.)

[The Hook]

Originally Posted by Mr2001

And it would be his own fault, not yours. You aren't obligated to come and rescue everyone who puts himself in danger, no matter how old they are.

This may be the Seinfeld finale episode turning on me, but isn't illegal in some places to stand around and do nothing to help, when you can, someone in need?

[threemae]

Originally Posted by Mr2001

You aren't obligated to come and rescue everyone who puts himself in danger, no matter how old they are.

Yeah, well, sometimes you shouldn't be a chicken-shit pansy ass trying to CYA about everything. Frankly, people that do really, really stupid things to endanger their own life sometimes need a little help in realizing the error of their ways, and frankly this adult acted in the best interests of the 14 year old.