Worked.
He’s done, gone, finished.
Thanks to those who replied to me: I didn’t mean to hijack the thread, but I do appreciate the information.
Having someone around your child who is being sexually aroused by them would be enough for most parents I suspect, regardless of actual physical threat.
Otara
But that isn’t the point of the registry. Murderers are dangerous and there isn’t a register of them. Armed robbers and muggers are also often pretty dangerous but there’s no register of them. However people who at the age of 17 had sex with their 16 year old girlfriend and people who accidentally downloaded pictures of a 17 year old in among other porn apparently are dangerous enough to require life-long monitoring by the general public. Society just has such paranoia about child abusers that anyone who has committed any kind of sexual offense is somehow deemed more of a threat to the community than a murderer or armed robber.
Why do you find it difficult to believe? Because people searching for pornography on the internet are always extrememly thorough and cautious about checking out the provenance and legality of every single image? Or that the person would never be prosecuted? Because the US law is so well known for its liberal and understanding attitude to accidental sex cries as related to minors?
This is why I would be worried about the weapons, larceny and assault convictions. It indicates a person who is not above taking things from other people, and inflicting harm upon them.
Guys with multiple convictions aren’t beating down the door to Mensa, except to steal all the “nice” things those smart people have. If he managed to get a key, all it takes is some hard times for him to decide he can get in and get out without anyone realizing it’s him.
Aren’t you the guy who said that if your daughter uses a public restroom you would physically bar any adult women from entering until she was finished?
TruCelt is a woman, so probably not, but I can’t say for sure.
If it makes you any feel any better, you probably cross paths with sex offenders and ex-cons all the time and never even know it. I have known more than fair over the years and they have never hurt me. Even most murderers don’t walk around with KILL, KILL, KILL flashing through their eyes all the time.
True story. The contractors that redid my kitchen turned out to be honest to God mafia and I was tipped off half way through the project. Their family was the victims of one of the most movie worthy open shooting bloodbaths in a Boston area restaurant. I was left spending my evenings by myself with the ones that didn’t get killed. They did good work though and my wife was good to the main one’s daughter so I just hung around and watched and didn’t criticize or nag too much. They got it done when they said it would be for the agreed upon price and that is the most important thing.
I remember getting in a board tussle about this. But it was a boy in a boys restroom. Cause I am a guy and I had the position that “fuck that, I am going in”. And somebody said they would fight me tooth and nail to keep me out. And I hoped that the TV cameras in the store were going so I could sue someones ass off after the assualt. And the assualter was a woman.
Could be TruCelt.
Oh yeah, I think you’re right about that, billfish. Either way it was over the top.
He’s an ex-con. That means that, whatever it was that he did, society as a whole has decided that he’s served adequate penalty for it and is now fit to re-enter society. Keep an eye on him, sure, but if his crime is such that you can’t trust him at all, then we (collectively, as a society) should have just made his sentences longer in the first place.
You are taking that completely out of context. The question at hand was whether I would allow my child to use a public restroom alone if for some reason I could not go in with her. The answer was that I would, but I’d guard the door until she came out. And I stand by that answer. If I can’t go in, then neither can they.
It was a really stupid fight, and occurred specifically because people kept ignoring parts of the question - I think one person threatened to beat the horrid protective parent over the head with a crutch.
I believe the whole fight ended when someone linked two examples of actual children being raped and killed in restrooms while their guardians stood right outside the door.
I’m still going in. Didnt change my mind.
Well we decided he’s served an adequate penalty for the things we caught him doing. I think the predators aren’t usually caught the first time. But we can only convict for the crimes we know about. But yes, we should make the sentence for some crimes much longer.
The Charlestown 99 Restruant Massacre? :eek: I remember reading about that in the Globe as a teen.
That’s the one. I got to know some of the survivors pretty well. They are pretty nice.
I seem to recall somebody here on the dope. Some lawyer/legal type that dealt with pedophiles. Lots of em. They said everyone caught/tried was a first timer, not a repeat offender.
No, because hearing that someone was convicted of child porn and went to prison solely for downloading two photos of a 17-year-old, presumably obtained completely unawares from a newsgroup otherwise dedicated to photos of legal adults, sounds like an unlikely scenario. Was this an FBI sting? How was the girl’s real age known? Was *every *person who downloaded the photos convicted and sent to prison? Was this the unluckiest man ever cursed to walk the face of the planet? Maybe, but my first guess is there’s a bit more to the story.
It was, never the less, true.
It was part of an effort to shut down Usenet. Check with your ISP - in all likelihood, they no longer carry Usenet newsgroups. The main reason they wish to shut it down is it is a primary avenue for the “warez scene”, illegally distributing commercial software. “Child porn” convictions are a way to intimidate Internet Service Providers to shut off their Usenet servers.
That it was posted by a company that specialized in girls of that age. Again, legal in the country where it was posted, illegal here. Usenet does not respect national borders.
No, just the guy who did not have the money to fight the conviction. The ugly truth is you could be absolutely innocent and still wind up serving time if you don’t have the money to fight it. Toss in a politically ambitious prosecutor, a crime that carries a presumption of guilt and the American public’s desire for recreational outrage and you have a miscarriage of justice and a ruined life.
I only became aware of the situation via a mutual friend, and I wound up volunteering as a “Usenet expert”. I was able to eliminate virtually all the images they were charging him with by finding “Section 2257 of Title 18 of the United States Code” statements from the commercial porn producers.
All except one set.
His conviction balanced on the fact that he had made folders for each different set. If he hadn’t, he’d be a free man. He was never accused of inappropriate behavior with anyone. He was, in my opinion, “collateral damage” in the war against a part of the Internet that most people are unaware even exists.
There are genuine pedophiles out there, and genuine predators hurting genuine children. But not in this case.