Yeah that’s not the situation at all. She said HE, the sex offender, might have to move.
Was it? I took it as they were living together and the anonymous note to the landlord meant they were both out (or that he had to be out or else she would follow).
My guess (which could well be wrong) was that it was her lease but he was living with her, and would no longer be able to. Either way though, it has NOTHING to do with evicting anyone because of who they’re dating, as you said. But I guess “evicting someone due to their status as a registered sex offender” doesn’t pack the same punch.
The message, not note, was regarding Rick, and Rick is the one who may have to move. But it doesn’t even matter, since Yogsooth is recommending that Shelley should make up lies about her neighbors, despite the fact that her neighbors don’t know about this yet (I don’t think) and weren’t the ones who made the phone call. This is apparently supposed to achieve… who the hell knows.
Let it go. As I said before, Shelley wouldn’t do this, and I wouldn’t recommend such pettiness in the first place.
We don’t see hysteria going on anywhere. You’ve used the term 4 times, or more, in the 2 paragraphs above. Get a dictionary. What we see is hyperbole, not hysteria.
A gullible woman has a pedo boyfriend, and the nursery/whatever, is taking steps that make sure that they have no liability should the bf decide to show up on the premises.
This is one of the most amazing things that I have read in a long time.
Is there a head-spinning smiley?
This is pretty limp. Also, you seem to be pretty much incensed at Yolanda, whose mind you don’t know, yet you scorn this poster for making a post using fundamental human behavior observations? For shame.
In this entire thread, there’s a grand total of one person who actually knows Shelley and has heard how she talks about the way they’ve lived regarding adhering to the restrictions on Rick. That would be yours truly. So yep, I feel way more qualified to judge Shelley’s likely behavior than you are.
But everyone, please, feel free to talk about the characters you’ve invented in your heads: Rick, the slavering pedo who’s managed to hide his multiple offenses from the authorities throughout the past decade while continually luring dozens of kids from the neighborhood schools to Shelley’s house; Shelley, the aide de pedo who promises her students candy and toys if they just come over for the night and take horsey rides with Rick, which she thinks is totally fine and always leaves them alone together; and finally Yolanda, the saintly heroine of the piece, who carefully bided her time despite knowing of Rick’s situation for years because… uh… because she had to make absolutely sure she was finally brave enough to make a series of anonymous calls to Shelley’s places of employment and her apartment. The Lifetime film will be called For The Sake of the Children: The Yolanda Smith Story. Cast is up to you.
Naturally Rick will be played by an actor wearing an ill-groomed moustache. Perhaps Shia Labeouf?
[Checks dictionary]
Yup, that’s what I meant. Not “hyperbole.”
Unreasonable fear is driving this irrational behavior; there is no risk of liability “should the bf decide to show up on the premises.” The emotional response (fear) is causing an extreme reaction disproportionate to any rational analysis. Hysteria. You may want to consult the dictionary yourself.
Yes, if I recall, I just got through swearing that you don’t know a thing about what Shelley will likely do, in comparison to my vast knowledge of the very thoughts of her soul. Yes, if I said it once, I’ve said it a hundred times. :rolleyes:
I’d be willing to bet, tho, that you will have no idea what this woman is capable of doing. Or, rather, of how she can surprise you.
As a matter of fact, tho, I can almost bet that you still don’t know jack about why/if Yolanda did anything. You are convinced that the 1 year later thing is because of evil intent on her part, not thinking that she could have been struggling with her conscience for all that time, finally making the best decision that she knew to make, with which you disagree.
And, that isn’t even what my post was about.
You may want to consult a law dictionary for ‘liability’, in re letting a known Sexual predator with a court order prohibiting him from being near the children onto the premises.
I was thinking of the other Lifetime Movie about the innocent victim who was framed for a child molestation he didn’t commit-and, the woman who loved him!
I didn’t say you meant hyperbole. I said 'that’s what we (dopers) are seeing." You were out of control.
Perhaps look up ‘obsession’.
Clearly you and I have a different sense of what is something that is reasonable to be afraid of and what is hysteria. As for “liability” - hiring a known sex offender and leaving him/her alone with children would be a legal liability. Hiring someone who happens to be in love with one is not. If the law states that he may not be on the premises (which I suspect it does) then knowingly encouraging him to be on the premises would be a liability. Being concerned that a person who apparently molested a younger cousin when he was an older teen-ager might specifically molest a child unknown to him specifically at a particular location specifically because that is where his girlfriend works because he might decide to pick her up and lose control watching the kids run around … yeah, that is a hysterical response.
Parents can be hysterical when it comes to their kids and the threat of molestation from outsiders. It can be an over-the-top paranoia, especially considering that kids are more in danger from family members or other close family friends. From what we’ve read here, it does seem unlikely that the kids at the school were in danger from Rick. It seems unlikely that 1)Rick would visit the school, 2)Rick would ever be alone with any kids, and 3)that Rick would then do anything to any of the kids. But parents can be hysterical, and they then sometimes sue people who they think put their precious babies into danger, even if objectively the danger was relatively small. Even if the parents don’t win a lawsuit, it could still be a problem for the school. Based on the fear of lawsuits, I can understand why the school let Shelley go.
I do wish society would change and would treat sex offenders like people who have done terrible things, and not like literal monsters. If/when they are released from prison, sex offenders should have whatever necessary restrictions on them to keep track and help prevent them from offending again, but also should be integrated into society when possible. But these are things that need to happen at the society level, not changes that Shelley or Rick or the school could do on its own.
I don’t want to sound too soft on sex offenders. I hope that every one who commits a crime is caught and punished appropriately. But I do think that sex offenders are a boogeyman of our society whose danger is blown up out of proportion, which leads us to overlook other issues that can be more harmful to kids and society, just in more subtle ways and in harder ways to combat.