As a friend you can listen and empathize how difficult it must be to be punished for who you choose to associate with on your own time and that it must be scary to not know if she’ll be able to work in her field while she is involved with this man who she loves. More than that, yeah I’d shut up beyond that.
For whatever crime he was found guilty of, he has served his time. He has followed the rules of his parole (we are led to believe) and not come near the school or other children.
Should a RSO be given a life sentence, above and beyond what the courts imposed, of never being able to have a relationship with another adult because that other adult will lose their job by association with them? Should people who love a RSO be punished merely for the fact of who they love? It seems like someone is going out of their way to make that happen, stalking this man and outing his associations so that they abandon him or suffer consequences for loving him. They are making it their mission to see that he cannot have a life, that he is punished to a much greater degree than what the courts imposed.
Agreed this woman may not be thinking through that his admitted illness makes him unsuitable to ever be a father involved with his children and that if that is something she wants he is not the man … but attraction and love often are not based on logical analysis.
She loves him and she is being punished, made an unemployable pariah, based not on any rational risk to any child (other than children they might want to have in the future) that that love poses (if he was coming to the school he could be arrested, period) but for its existence.
That does not seem right. To me anyway. I’d have no difficulty being a sympathetic ear even as I would try to ask her open ended questions that would help acknowledge to herself what price she is likely going have to pay so long as this relationship continues. Not that such would change her feelings.
Not at all. Just ideas on what freelance work she can do while looking for a job. She’s done some technical writing so I recommended signing up at one of the sites like eLance or Freelance.com and giving those a try. It’s nothing guaranteed and the money is always pretty crappy, but right now I don’t think she cares, she just wants to be doing something.
I’ve only been let go from one job in my ancient life, and it was one I kinda was hoping to get fired from (didn’t want to resign and not get unemployment) but even then it still hurt my ego for the job not to work out; I think it’s good that she’s trying to get something to occupy her and earn her a little money as soon as possible so she doesn’t get too disheartened.
Thank you, DSeid. That’s excellent advice and I’ll give it a try. And thanks for the rest of your message. I understand the outrage of those of us who are horrified and disgusted by the RSOs, and I also understand the frustration on the part of someone who really wants to rejoin society. It’s just a horrible set of circumstances for which I hope, someday, we’ll have a better solution.
I haven’t yet heard from Shelley and I don’t know how this 2nd job even heard about Rick. I mean I know it’s a small town but good lord, gossip can’t go that fast. As you say, it really sounds like someone (this ex-friend of hers, probably) is making it a point to hurt Shelley by using Rick’s past. If my guess is correct, it’s not about vengeance against Rick, it’s just bitchiness aimed at Shelley who didn’t even do anything to the friend.
To me that seems far more revolting and cruel than if it were someone genuinely worried about the Rick situation. I’d understand (if not agree with) someone making anonymous phone calls or emails about Shelley’s personal life in order to Save the Children. I sure as hell don’t get anyone who’d take advantage of private knowledge of this whole sordid background in order to harm the career of a former friend. That’s beyond my ken.
Honey, this ain’t about me. All I am saying is that YOU should know the whole truth, instead of whatever biased information trickles down from your friends and Rick. Also, if you’re gonna rant to the entire world about a personal situation, you should at least offer us enough facts so we can properly make a hasty rush to judgment.
You said that Rick was 17 when he was accused of child rape. If the girl (was it a girl?) was 12-13, that’s skeevy but somewhat understandable; kids will be kids. If she was much younger, or if force was involved, that’s a whole different ball game; hell, it’s a whole goddamn different sport!
Frankly, I’m beginning to suspect that you may be aware of the truth, but are holding back because you don’t want to cast any negative light on Rick. Not your fault – you’ve merely been duped by a monster.
Hold on…how old was Rick when he started this blog? 14-15? Are you claiming there was some conspiracy to frame Rick, and he’s not guilty of child rape at all? Are you certain that what you’ve been told is even close to the real truth?
No, there’s someone (probably more than one) who wants to hurt RICK, but he’s untouchable, so they can only take out their righteous vengeance on Shelley. It sucks to be her…no really, it totally sucks.
But this kind of small-town bullshit happens all the time. And it probably would’ve happened anyway even if Rick was a genuine victim of the system. That said, either way, you should maintain as much distance as possible – don’t reject your friend, just keep enough distance so that YOU don’t get dragged through the garbage disposal just like your friend did.
But are we informed enough to give this man the benefit of the doubt, based on the OP’s guarded stance & incomplete information? I suppose there may be a few convicted sex offenders who are genuinely worthy of compassion – I’ve never thought much about it, but logic would presume there may be some – but I would be extremely careful of expressing sympathy for a mysterious man who may not deserve any sympathy. I could be wrong, or I could be biased based on my own family’s history, but all the signals are present; there’s more to this story, and it feels much darker than anyone’s willing to admit.
He was found guilty of a crime and was punished according to the law. He needs to stay away from children. He is given no benefit of doubt and allowed to show up on school grounds. The law is clear and we have no indication that he is not complying with it.
Some though seem to believe that the punishment meted by the courts is not enough. A murderer once released may be allowed to have a life after serving time, but this person … No. Leave him no option but suicide. That seems to be the gestalt.
Heh. Okay, so you were joking. Sorry, I couldn’t tell. Anyway the information I’ve received has been from these anti-pedo blogs more than from Shelley (and nothing from Rick, I barely know him). They’re not sparing the details because they want to protect him, believe me.
If I’m judging their ages correctly, yeah. There’s really a three-year window on either side (though probably up rather than down) because I suck at guessing ages (and I don’t know their birthdates so it is just a guess) and I’ve read two different things on the two different sites that talk about the case and his history on the web.
OMG it’s worse than that. I’M RICK … and I’m RIGHT BEHIND YOU!!!
Um, no. I seriously don’t know anything other than what the blogs told me and the fact that Shelley says he’s not guilty. Do I need to stress again that Shelley is a friend mainly because she’s been a work client of mine for a couple of years now, and I am not breaching the boundaries of this primarily work-based relationship just to satisfy the drooling maws of the SDMB horde’s curiosity due to a) politeness (mine), b) privacy (hers), and c) income (mine, which she provides to me on a semi-regular basis, although obviously right now that’ll be on hold).
I’m not claiming anything, it’s what’s on his “rap sheet” according to these blogs. I’m giving possible readings of what could’ve happened, including everything on the scale from his being a dumbass scumbag sleazebucket fuck who attacked his niece to his being framed by a grossed-out and overprotective sister/brother-in-law. There are a lot of different interpretations possible on that scale, and I’m not claiming any of them are true because I just. Do. Not. Freakin’. Know. More than that, I don’t want to know because I’m not that close with Shelley and I don’t want to know more than she would tell me herself. It just doesn’t seem right. YMMV but that’s how I keep some sense of boundaries on various relationships. If she wanted me to know, she’d’ve told me. I feel guilty enough having looked him up in the first place.
Agreed, but if Shelley’s suspicions (which align with mine, primarily because I’m getting the dramatis personae from her) are correct, the only person who could possibly have told her employers was a woman who used to be her close friend. Okay, it’s time this particular player had a name, I’ll call her, uh, Yolanda (Jesus, I have no idea where that one came from! First thing that sprung to mind).
According to Shelley, Yolanda has never expresssed any issue with Rick. However, her friendship with Shelley has disintegrated over the past couple of months when Yolanda found a new BFF (this is one petty town!) and dropped Shelley like a hot coal. Shelley kept trying to find out why but Yolanda refused to speak with Shelley, pulling the ol’ very mature silent treatment on her. (From all I’ve heard about Yolada I suspect she might be bipolar. She seems to run very hot and cold–when she’s your friend she never stops emailing/texting you; then suddenly she’ll go incommunicado for weeks because of some imagined slight.)
Things were still incommunicado when suddenly this “no fraternizing with SROs” rule appeared in the employee handbook last week, and then Shelley was hit by two firings one day after another this week.
It’s either one hell of a coincidence or it’s Yolanda. And by the way, the person who’s taking over Shelley’s job? Is Yolanda’s BFF.
Ridiculously long Degrassi Junior High story short, I’m totally comfortable in blaming Yolanda for this, and saying that it was her spiteful bitchy way of fucking with Shelley, for no other reason than because this was the best weapon in her arsenal and, well, she wanted to use it. It makes as much sense as someone finding this out about Rick, and magically linking Rick to Shelley, and then bothering to tell both of Shelley’s places of employment about the whole thing. (Shelley and Rick have for self-evident reasons never gone to any school functions together.)
Amen to that, brother. I’ve never been so happy to have three or four states between me and a client before.
And can I just say, if this thread gets longer than my “I’ve never read LOTR” thread in Cafe Society I am going to be VERY PISSED OFF. I’m damn proud of that one. But if there’s anything that rivals LOTR as a subject on the SDMB, it’s this, so I guess I shouldn’t be surprised.
The benefit of the doubt is that subject to the limitations imposed on him that were already mentioned, he should be allowed to live his life, just as any one of us is. And that would include not inflicting drastic penalties on anyone who associates with him, thereby dooming him to be a solitary pariah for the rest of his life. And to answer another poster, yes, in fact, nine years of good behavior, i.e., not re-offending, should be enough to extend this person some sort of conditional trust.
But it seems that many posters here as well as society in general would rather he was just taken out and burned alive. If this had not happened in a medieval little shitbag of a town in the midst of Bible Land, the girl if not Mister Evil Sex Offender would have a good chance in court with a discrimination lawsuit. But they are probably getting the torches and rope ready right now, so he, if not the both of them, should leave town stat. And never, never look back.
(Why don’t places like this ever suffer nuclear accidents or meteor strikes?)
The dirty rotten no-good evil disgusting subhuman sex offending ungodly pedophile has the basic right to live as a citizen (which he is), including that good ol’ life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. That’s the deal when you serve a finite sentence. Subject to certain limitations, you get your life back. Or are you saying that he doesn’t have the right to associate with someone without that person being subjected to horrible penalties as a result (which, in turn, destroys his rights of association)? That he can’t love anyone because that person will be destroyed as a result? That seems OK to you?
Also, formally codified laws aside, he has the right to live in peace. Even if he IS a no-good stinkin’ lousy filthy disgusting lice-ridden subhuman perverted bastard.
In fairness–and keep in mind I am on record here as being troubled by the often draconian way we deal with this issue, so don’t jump down my throat please–the trouble occured because Shelley is specifically in a child-care field. If she were working in Real Estate or insurance or as a restaurant hostess, her employment would likely not be in jeopardy.
But there is understandable hesitation about a school or daycare center employing someone who deals with young kids and is in a relationship–hell, she and Rick may end up married (I have no idea if they’re that close)–with an S.R.O. /avowed pedophile. Shelley does have a choice to make here, and it’s a damn shame but sometimes love means hard choices and sacrifices.
Finally I don’t think a discrimination case would ever fly anywhere, even in my super-enlightened and much-beloved capital of the world NYC, because NY, like so many states, is an “at will” employment law state. And let’s face it, neither besotted twentysomething teachers nor S.R.O’s are protected classes.
Boy, I’d like to think so. I’d really like to believe that you’re right, that such personal information as who you live with or who you have sex with on a regular basis would be collected and then only used for cause. I think she’d actually have to worry were she in any profession: “Our company values don’t include employing people who associate with evil pedophile sex perverts.” I can see this happening anywhere: a real estate office, Denny’s, or the Secret Service.
Perhaps the real evil here is the “at will” employment climate. You shouldn’t be able to fire someone just because their boyfriend/girlfriend/pet/tennis partner/mother/father/daughter/son/distant relative/therapist makes you feel icky. Guilt by association is a concept that was supposedly discarded centuries ago. It’s monstrously unfair.
The “at will” practice hurts employees but hurts employers not at all. On her resume, it’s going to say that she was fired. No one will really care about the circumstances thereof, at least not before the interview stage, which because of this black mark, she will have a hard time reaching. I envision her actually explaining what happened, and in Illinois, the interviewer nodding her head in approval, and in (say) Oregon, the interviewer recoiling in horror and saying, “That’s so unfair!” She really should abandon ship (with or without her boyfriend) and go someplace where people treat each other decently.
The whole story, as I’m sure you can tell, fills me with disgust. I hope both people can find some kind of relief from the injustice that’s been poured on their heads, and can make a life somewhere, whether it’s together or separately. They both sound like decent people.
Aha, you read it on the Internet, so it must be true!
Here’s a thought…why don’t you just call up your friend and ASK HER what really happened? Think of it as part of the grief counseling process.
Okay, now she’s no longer just a friend but also someone you work with. Hope for your sake that you’re not a lawyer or doctor or therapist or else you’d really be in dutch. I understand that you just needed to vent but FFS, we’re not interested in your client’s personal details, only Rick’s. And Rick’s not your client, is he?
And feel free to share a link to those anti-pedo blogs where you learned all this information, if you think it’s fair play. I could use a little light reading tonight.
WTF, dude, it’s the only place I could get the information; I’m not taking it as gospel, I just said it could mean anything from “He’s Satan” to “He’s an Innocent Framed Man.” These accounts are from places that put the worst possible spins on such situations–they’re anti-pedo crusaders. I should think you’d consider that proof positive, since you’re certain he’s a psychopath and all.
Here’s a thought: Because. It. Is. None. Of. My. Business. Which part of this do you not get? The details have nothing to do with the reason I created this thread. I’m not crossing a line and causing someone I know distress about a subject that is obviously extremely sensitive and upsetting to her just to keep you entertained. Sorry to disappoint you, Caligula, you’ll have to find some other bread and circuses to entertain your hunger for the sordid.
Now? Hey guess what, in my response to* you* in post #20, I described the relationship. To wit:
Okay? Get it? Stop accusing me of changing my story just because you can’t follow it even though you keep nagging me for details. Hope for your sake you’re not in a business that requires paying attention.
Christ on a cracker. Seriously? You seriously expect me to do that? Damn, mister, go get your own utterly bizarre reading material to… I don’t even know what you’re slavering for, but it’s getting decidedly creepy.
To others reading this: am I losing what’s left of my tiny brain? Is that really how IMHO works? Because I wrote an OP asking for help in advising/supporting someone, I’m therefore obliged to give out every sordid detail about this person’s boyfriend’s life, most of which I don’t even know, including links to where he’s excoriated on the web?
I’m assuming that’s the royal “we” because I’m seeing a lot of people who apparently are actually well-socialized and understand what privacy is, and do not expect me to call up this woman who was just fired from two jobs and say: “Mmm, yeah, too bad, good luck with all that. Um, just for shits and giggles, how old was this girl that Rick tried to fuck/fucked/molested/didn’t molest, and how old was he, and did he enjoy it, and are there pictures? Oh, why am I asking? Just because this dude on the internet wants every lurid detail. *Why *does he want this? I don’t really know, but it’s apparently my obligation to provide this material for his kicks, so I figured I’d call.”
Yeah. Not going to happen. Give it up already. You’ll have to do your own scouring of the internet to find pedophile accusations and histories. Knock yourself out.
Choie, I can totally see why you would not feel comfortable asking Shelley for any more details about the crime for which Rick was convicted, but please try to understand that buddha_david is just trying to help you out.
IF you want to be more than just a shoulder to cry on, and actually provide some advice, it will probably involve your helping her decide which path to take: be with Rick, or work with kids. Knowing a bit more about what Rick was convicted for would, in my opinion, help you frame how you help Shelley choose between these two paths. 17/13? Probably go along with her as she edges toward choosing Rick. 17/10? Probably try to gently guide her toward dropping Rick and sticking with working with children.
A convicted child molester is dating a nursery school teacher and babysitter, and you think this is about spite?
If I was her boss, I would fire her too. A teacher is required by law to take credible evidence of sexual abuse seriously. A conviction is credible evidence, yet she dismisses it as a fabrication because a self-confessed pedophile claims he was framed. Why would I trust her to handle the next case any better?
This is a very good point, and pretty much nails why I don’t think she should be allowed to work with kids. There’s also the parental hysteria factor to take into consideration. Even if the church somehow didn’t have a problem with her dating this guy, it’s a small town. And if/when these small-town parents find out that their daycare worker’s boyfriend is on the registry, they’re going to **flip the fuck out **at the school. So when you think about it that way, this wasn’t a spiteful firing. The school is just covering their ass.
I think that this is a reference to the fact that she is a mandated reporter. As am I. That explicitly means I am not to place myself as judge or jury. I do not decide guilt or innocence or what punishment should be if guilty. If there is any credible reason to suspect abuse I, as a mandated reporter, must report it, whether I think it is false or true. Often I have reported things that I did not think were abuse but the injury was not consistent with the trauma described so I was mandated to report despite the fact that my index of suspicion was low. My believing one thing had nothing to do with whether or not I was mandated to report. I was and I did. And sometimes I was pretty sure something was abuse and Child Services decided otherwise. I then am obligated to accept those findings.
Her falling in love with a RSO, her personally believing his version of events, has no bearing on her understanding her obligations as mandated reporter or ability to perform that task.
Ok, I may be missing something here, but this entire scenario reeks of [del]Kanye West[/del] fish. Sounds an awful lot like we’re being played here.
Guy announces to his family that he’s a pedophile. (wait, what?)
Guy is later busted by his own family(!!) and convicted.
Somewhere in here Guy begins dating Woman.
After this, Woman decides to get a job at a church run daycare. (wait, what? Can you imagine that conversation? “Hey, great idea honey, we’re both into kids…” Did she spend a half second thinking this was a bad idea while dating a convicted pedophile?)
Woman is fired for her relationship with Guy.
NO FUCKING SHIT? Sounds like both of them are dangerous and I wouldn’t allow either one of them within 100 yards of my child (if I had one) or any child I knew.
Oooooh, pedantry! This is fun.
Their is also acceptable in place of ‘he or she’.
In this instance he has had no legally protected rights violated and you’re moving the goalposts of your invalid argument to bolster its obvious weakness.
I hope you and buddha_david have a great guffaw over this at your next NAMBLA coffee klatch.
But if there’s anything that rivals LOTR as a subject on the SDMB, it’s this, so I guess I shouldn’t be surprised.
because NY, like so many states, is an “at will” employment law state. And let’s face it, neither besotted twentysomething teachers nor S.R.O’s are protected classes.