It may or may not be a public nuisance offence but it’s not a sex crime on any planet I’ve lived on.
He did not leave when told to.
Guilty of loitering, maybe. Innocent of anything else.
Of course, the prosecutors may know full well they couldn’t get a conviction when they charged him, but are using the threat as leverage, which is a violation of the rules … but hey, it’s “for the children” so screw due process.
I would bet that the arresting officers are trying to parlay the “stalking children at the park” thing into a warrant to look for child pr0n on his computer. I bet they find it, too, and I bet it won’t be limited to children’s shoe catalogs.
It’s ok to have sexual fetishes. It’s not ok to involve children in your sexual fetishes.
Maybe he was worried they’d catch a cold?
But again – for what?
The problem is that what he did probably wasn’t a crime. I’m not sure what acts are necessary to complete stalking, but I doubt very much that what’s described here does the trick. And there simply isn’t a crime called “being a gross, creepy, guy that pervs on sock-wearing girls.”
I agree with your evaluation that it’s not OK to involve children in your sexual fetishes.
But the police are not in the business of enforcing what is, and is not, “OK.” They are involved in enforcing the crminal code.
And one rule of criminal law is that the language of criminal statutes is construed strictly against the state. A law that only vaguely prohibits conduct is not enforceable; the law must clearly and unambiguously give notice as to what conduct is prohibited.
And for what it’s worth, I don’t believe the facts reported thus far would support the issue of a search warrant, which must describe the facts that give rise to probable cause to believe that the fruits or instrumentalities of a crime will be discovered in the places the warrant seeks to search. Of course, if he’s not under arrest, and volunteers that he has pictures that go beyond shoe catalogs, then it’s a different story.
I concur with the caveat that sometimes the law itself is wrong. It may still be a law on the books in Los Angeles or maybe California that made it illegal for a man to be at a park if you did not have your child with you. It was done to protect the children, but if you were a guy and decided to get a Subway sandwich and walk to the park to eat it on a bench, you could be arrested. I don’t remember if it was considered a sex crime or not.
I don’t want to live in a world where I can’t take my footlong out in public.
Sure. Do you happen to have a link to the particular criminal code that was cited in the article?
The location is Port St. Lucie, Florida.
The charges are: “… felony lewd or lascivious exhibition committed on, or in the presence of, persons less than 16. He also was charged with a misdemeanor count of loitering or prowling.”
Being a lawyer, you probably have better tools for looking up the exact wording of those laws than we do.
Yeah, well do you have the actual criminal statute? Are you asserting that this particular criminal statute is vague?
Apparently doing something lewd or lascivious in the presence of people 15 or younger is a felony in Port St. Lucie. That’s what he’s been charged with, although of course it remains to be seen if it holds up in court.
I would say that involving children in one’s sexual fetishes is doing something lewd and lascivious - even if all the guy is doing is collecting their sweaty socks so he can take the socks home and masturbate with them.
You may well be right about their chances of getting a search warrant - I just said that I suspect they’ll try. I base that suspicion on the fact that the guy has already volunteered that he approached the kids, and then loitered around them, because of his sexual fetish
It seems to me the DA might argue that, because of the man’s admitted sexual interest in children’s socks, and because it’s a felony to do something sexual around children, such as collect their socks for sexual purposes, then they should search his apartment to see if he as other childrens’ socks, or photos of such, as evidence of his doing lewd and lascivious things around other children.
They may not get their warrant but I think they have grounds to ask.
Being a poster, you probably have eyes, and could have clicked the link in post #2 of this very thread.
The guy was evidently following the children for long enough that he drew their attention.
“Something sexual” does have to be defined in some sense, though. And while I’m not moved by the pleas of “thoughtcrime!” here, there’s no indication as far as I can tell that he’s taken socks from children and buying child-size socks from a store isn’t a crime.
What? Lemme ask you this. If an attractive woman walks down the street and I take a mental image of her for later use in my spank bank, did I do something lewd and lascivious without her permission? Could I be charged with attempted rape, for example?
I understand that these are children and deserving of extra protection, but as has been said, the guy did nothing and attempted nothing sexual with these children. What if I tell a 6 year old that she has a pretty dress on. I may be a perv or I may just be a regular guy. Are you prepared to charge everyone with a felony and see where the chips fall?
No. To the contrary, it’s very specific:
§ 800.04(7)(a), Fla. Stat:
And a sexual act is defined by 800.04(1)(a) as:
But the law defines lewd and lascivious. It’s not simply a crapshoot, or what sounds lewd to a random person.
Bugger. I overlooked that post earlier.
Bricker -
Thank you for posting this. Sorry I overlooked it previously.
However, it looks like there’s a problem with this statute.
You’re correct that “sexual act” is defined in such a way it requires physical contact. However, the section on “Lewd and Lascivious Exhibition” specifically talks about non-physical sexual behavior.
Furthermore, looking just above that, at the section in the statute regarding “Lewd or Lascivious Conduct”, at § 800.04(6),we find this:
Which not only posits non-contact sexual activity, but specifically mentions enticing other people under the age of 16 to do lewd and lascivious stuff. That would seem to apply more specifically to the man in the OP, who was attempting to entice the kids to wear socks because, as he volunteered to the police, he has a sexual fetish concerning it.
In short, I think the statute clearly does not intend to limit “sexual activity” to the full-contact acts it lists in the “Definitions” section, which you quoted. However, it’s also clear that the statute’s Definition list does not include non-contact activities. I don’t know what to do about the contradiction. Maybe this will come up at the trial?
Yes. Right? What are we arguing about? I never said his arrest was a crapshoot.
My initial post, which you quoted, was written on the assumption that the man in the OP was charged with an actual crime - “felony lewd or lascivious exhibition committed on, or in the presence of, persons less than 16”, is how the OP put it. I never imagined or suggested that that his arrest wasn’t based on actual criminal statutes.
He may be found innocent, of course. And of course, the reporter may have gotten it all wrong in the retelling. But that’s neither here nor there with regard to my initial post.
Let me expand on my initial post while replying to Marley as well as yourself, Bricker -
Marley -
Here’s what I’m thinking - and of course, this is speculation because I don’t have some kind of mindlink with the prosecutors. But here’s what I was thinking.
- It’s illegal, according to these statues quoted above, to commit a sexual act in the presence of children under the age of 16.
1a. Even though I hadn’t then read the actual statute, I took the OP at face value that the man was charged with an actual crime.
-
The man, Robert van Wagner, asked the girls to wear some socks, run around the field, and then return the socks to him.
-
van Wagner told police that he did this because of a sexual fetish.
-
Asking children to perform an action because it satisfies a sexual fetish is - and ought to be - illegal.
-
The illegal part is in asking the girls to do <blank> for van Wagner’s sexual satisfaction.
-
It doesn’t matter what <blank> is. Asking the children to participate, is involving them in an adult’s sexual fetish.
-
Because van Wagner admitted to the police that he asked the kids to do something for his sexual fetish, he’s probably screwed.
-
Because van Wagner admitted to police that he’s done this before, I suspect the prosecutors will try to get warrants to look for further evidence, possibly in hopes of finding evidence of worse behavior.
-
As I said - they may not get a warrant, but I suspect they’ll try.
-
And I suspect if they look for worse behavior, they’ll find it. I may be wrong of course.
-
Aside from my suspicions, which I concede are purely IMHO, and granting the definition problems which the statute, which I noted above - I think it’s reasonable that it’s illegal for an adult to ask children to participate, in any capacity, in an adult’s sexual fetishes or fantasies. It doesn’t matter if the participation is limited. Children shouldn’t be asked to participate. Period.
And having provided John Mace with another straight line, I’m going to bed.
Trying on socks is not any type of sexual activity nor is it “lewd and lascivious stuff.”
You’ve failed to show that that’s illegal.
It won’t, because the charge will be dismissed before trial, because it’s unsustainable.
There’s your problem. It DOES matter what <blank> is.
And as to what acts might be lewd or lascivious:
Would an ordinary person know, by reading the law, that the conduct of asking a young girl to put on socks and walk around is prohibited by law?
No.
A “fetish” is, by definition, something that causes sexual arousal but which in itself is not sexual. If I had a fetish for hearing people (even minors) tell me the time of day, I could likely walk around in public getting my rocks off 24/7 without breaking the law, and no one would be the wiser. If I admitted I was doing it to satisfy a fetish, as did the perv in this case, would it then become illegal when it wasn’t before?