Psycho creeps keep daughter in kennel

The kennel is in a connected storage facility with no heat… but it’s OK to lock her out there naked, he says. He gave her a blanket!

Incidentally, this isn’t the girl’s father (as if that makes a difference). He’s the mother’s “boyfriend.”

He’s facing misdemeanor charges. One can only hope he’ll get the maximum penalty with some jail time… so I can offer a carton of Kools for the first meth freak who will do anything for a carton of Kools.

Why is he only being charged with a misdemeanor? That’s ridiculous.

Better hope he doesn’t end up in a non-smoking jail, then.

They have one of those here.

It won’t matter. Not one bit. The woman is even more at fault IMO. She’ll march her ass right back to him, saying “But he really loves me,” and “he’s sorry”. And he’ll continue making the daughter suffer. And soon it may even be molestation/rape, who knows?

Aargh! :rolleyes:

I saw this on the local news last night. The guy was smiling, answering questions and trying to justify their actions. “Well you know there are always two sides to a story.” Fucktard! Not to this story!

I’m hoping the initial charges are just the beginning and that the authorities can pile it on. They did the strip search because they thought she had a key on her and were concerned that she would try to get out. Yeah, and perhaps go to the police?

Like Mycroft said, I hope it’s just for now (what they know they can have stick) and they’ll be able to tack on more, like sexual abuse for the strip searches or criminal neglect or child endangerment.

I think it’s ironic that I’m responding to Diogenes and Mycroft H. in the same post…

I can see putting her in a kennel, hitting her, and strip searching her… but reading her diary? Inhumane! Put him in jail and throw away the key for that.

Seriously, why’d they have to put “read her diary” in the list of offenses this jackass did?

The Star Tribune’s article:

Well, you see, if someone commits an act of data privacy violation in the course of committing a misdemeanor, that automatically adds ten years to the sentence due to the Data Privacy And Monkey Reallocation Act of 2003, thank you very much Congressman Oberstar.

From here:

And on preview, i see that lno found a similar quote in a different article. Seems like a gross misdemeanour is all these fuckers are going to be charged with. Here’s hoping they at least get the maximum sentence, which is a year in jail and a $3,000 fine.

Great-so when he gets out, she’ll be 14.

Gee, that’ll make all the difference, no?

Well, i never said i liked it, only that it was apparently the most they could get based on the charges.

Anyway, whether they spend one day or one year in jail, there’s always the possibility that they won’t get the kid back anyway. She’s currently with Child Services, according to the articles, and maybe they’ll decide that the parents shouldn’t get her back.

I was pitting the legal system, not you! Methinks that MN needs to get a statute on the books, pronto that covers shit like this…

Here’s hoping they NEVER get a chance to hurt that girl again. I hope she has a decent relative who will step forward, take her in, and deny any chance that they might possibly even get a glimpse of her again. :mad:

I’m not defending this shit - by any means.

But what sort of statute could you write? Do you want to legally define when kennels should be heated for the purpose of keeping naked kids confined? Is it okay if the kid is allowed some clothing? What’s the legal difference between a kennel and playpen: both are designed to restrict the movements of the critter placed in them.

I don’t like this. I don’t know how general child abuse can’t be made to cover this. But I can’t see a law that could be written that would be sufficiently generic to be useful.

If anyone has a suggestion, I’d be thrilled to hear it, of course.

Well, for one thing, I’d be looking mighty hard at sexual molestation charges because he “stripped her naked”. He’s not her father AFAIK, he hasn’t adopted her, he’s not even married to her mother. She’s pubescent. Also, IIRC some states won’t even let parents take their child by the arm and make them walk where they don’t want to go, it’s considered “kidnapping”. That’s too extreme IMO, but I’m sure that a law could be made that forbids “confining” minors in outside structures (like sheds, port-a-potties, dog kennels, chicken coops etc. in any kind of weather, but especially not the heat of summer or cold of winter, as means of displinary measure.

Basically, make it so you can confine them to their “normal living quarters” i.e. their room/the house, but not other places. Ah, also put in they can’t be confined in cars either, and maybe look at things like travel trailers that are unheated/uncooled. Maybe write it so that you have to ground them in such a way that they are “protected from temperature extremes”? Most parents just send the kid to their room, so it’s not a worry. It would be difficult, but possible to at least write up a law that could be employed to prosecute cases like this. The worry would be when overzealous prosecutors went after parents whose homes lost power in a winter storm I suppose.

Zabali_Clawbane, I agree with most of your reasoning. It’s just that as much as I worry about letting sleaze like this get away with stuff, I also worry about overzealous prosecutors. I don’t have a solution, just trying to say that there are problems I think are legitimate with laws that are too broad. Just look at The Patriot Act, or the RICO laws.

OtakuLoki I share the same feelings. It’s hard to find a balance between setting laws to prosecute those who have wronged another and deserve strict sanctions which the current laws do not cover, and making the laws so they can’t be misused and misinterpreted down the road. :frowning:

I’m really against knee-jerk legislation that happens after the media reports on a story that the legislators clammor to fix a problem only to make it worse. A law forbidding confining minors to outside structures may then get applied to treehouses or icehouses that *could * be perfectly fine shelters. I don’t have any answers to how to solve a problem either.

stpauler I used the term “confine” to mean “punish/ground”, you also should read my other post, number 17 in this thread.

You can get the email address for the Ramsey County Attorney’s Office on their web page if you think they incorrectly concluded that sexual assault or kidnapping statutes do not apply.