Well now I don’t know what to do next time a small child is frolicking in my general vicinity and starts to head for the alligator enclosure safety rail, or the train tracks, and I’m the closest adult in the child’s trajectory, and someone who is frantically calling out to that child makes eye contact as if to say, “Please, fellow human, catch my little demon/precious child before he or she hurts him/herself.”
Because what if I’ve misinterpreted the parent’s intention? What if nobody else anticipates any danger from the child making for the alligator’s open maw?
That’s a tough one. I really do wish you folks with the childen would keep them indoors or properly leashed so we aren’t faced with these dilemmas.
I do not agree with the ruling from the OP, but I would have to say that there is probably a difference with pulling a child from the jaws of death (or an alligator) and restraining a kid after the fact of the matter. One is an immediate threat. I also think it does make a difference when you are restraining a child near an idling car (I am assuming).
Still, it all seems crazy stupid. The discussion hear shows that rulings like this will make people think twice before lending aid to a child in danger. I already give slight pause before I help old ladies board a bus or something. I think I am going to just start throwing all caution to the wind and be radical and help people without thinking about the litigious ramifications.
Not really. The sex offender list is already somewhat of a joke, because in many places a teenage boy who has sex with his teenage girlfriend (a couple years younger than him) is guilty of a sex offense, and must register. In some places both teens are guilty, depending on their precise ages.
The result is that if someone comes to your door and says “hi, I’m a sex offender”, or if you see his name and picture posted on a list somewhere, you don’t know if he’s the kind of guy you should keep your kids away from, or if he’s just the unfortunate victim of some dumb law like that one or the one in the OP. And even if your new neighbor isn’t a registered sex offender, that doesn’t mean you’re any safer with him around - he still might be a murderer, arsonist, burglar, or record company executive.
Obviously you’ve missed the stories of people being persecuted, forced to change jobs, and forced to move out of neighborhoods because of the hysteria generated when it was found they were registered sex offenders. It’s not like they’re given the opportunity to explain, “Oh, yeah, I’m a registered sex offender, but all I was really doing was holding a girl by the arm so I could chastise her for running out in traffic.” People hear “sex offender” and start looking for the nearest hanging tree.
This guy is screwn for the rest of his life because of some stupid, ill-conceived, knee-jerk reactionary statute.
I shudder at the thought… :eek:
(is “screwn” a word? How about screwed, instead).
I think in a way, that the list and the hysteria is a way to distract attention and provide an outlet for strong emotions, while doing nothing to solve the problem.
It may make people feel better to have such a list (and it may serve a useful purpose) but I think that parents should suspect that church camp counselor or uncle or whoever, as well. So often we want it to be a boogie man of sorts–we don’t like to think of evil so close to home.
Indeed. Singling out sex offenders in particular seems pointless to me. As a nonparent, I’d be far more worried about someone moving in next door who’s going to kill me, beat me up, steal my car, or break into my apartment than I would be about a child molester or even a rapist. If we’re going to make criminals register with their neighborhoods, effectively extending their sentence for the rest of their lives, why not do it for these crimes too?
First of all, I don’t think the man in question is a sex offender if the case is as stated. However, there are some really specious comparisons being made on this thread.
This case = girl ran out in front of car. Man does not hit girl, stops car, and grabs girl to discipline her for her careless behavior after the fact. Was it necessary for him to lay a hand on her? Absolutely not. It’s not a sex offense, but it’s NOT the same as pulling a kid away from an obviously potentially dangerous situation like a fistfight on a train platform, an alligator pit, the edge of a cliff, the middle of a busy street etc. The girl was not in imminent danger, so he shouldn’t have touched her. It was just plain stupid for him to do so.
I agree with Jaade– I would be mightily upset if a stranger grabbed my kid’s arm in a way that qualified as “unlawful restraint,” just as I would be upset if the guy grabbed my arm in the same situation. Yell at me, honk your horn, jump up and down, call the police, but keep your damn hands to yourself.
Heh. Better part of thirty years ago, I witnessed my young nephew come haring around a blind bend on his bicycle and scare half to death the driver of the post office van he nearly stuck himself underneath. So I consoled the frightened driver and scooted around to my sister’s house, whereupon I hauled said nephew to his feet and chewed him out good and proper.
…So for the last 28 years or so I’ve been a sex criminal, it seems. Weird shit. :rolleyes: “Keep your damn hands to yourself”? Sure. On pain of being a registered sex offender for ever? Crap * 10^100.
This doesn’t make sense at all. Ruining someone’s life with “sex offender” status because their action looked similar to a precursor to what an actual sex offender might have done?
How is this different from if a girl drops something, and a man runs across a street (jaywalking in the process) to give it to her?
“Sir, you are found guilty of jaywalking. In addition, since you were commited this crime in order to chase after a young girl, you will be forced to register as a sex offender. Yes, you were just giving her back the item she dropped, but I don’t have the power to make that distinction.”
It was late, I was tired, and I thought you were saying the lists had reached the point where people ignored them because the signal-to-noise ratio was too low. Upon rereading, I see that wasn’t your point.
No. The world of which you speak was a world in which Serial Killers went unnoticed, unreported, uninvestigated, and forgotten about. It was also a world where the Media wasn’t a circus and didn’t transmit every nasty, gruesome story from coast to coast and country to country in minutes. I’m guessing you also believe that sex abuse is on the rise and didn’t happen in that same world, and that teen pregnancies and back-alley abortions didn’t occur.
Head in sand much?
Clair- That scariest part about this is that there have been several cases recently(~5 years or so), in which men in California with no priors, and no assault-type activity against children have been charged as sex offenders. I hate this paranoia crap. Like the morons who protested a sex offender release in their neighborhood in San Jose because they “had young daughters”.
The Offender in question was a same-sex, same age group offender… :rolleyes:
P.S.- Clair, I forgot the most important point about my post-the men who were charged as sex offenders were just sitting at parks, watching children play.
AFAIK, yes. My Wife took a human sexuality course and the teacher was all up in arms about it at the time. They spent quite a bit of time discussing sex-offense hysteria.
I know one case was in Palo Alto, CA, and there was another story, but I forget where. Maybe if I get some time I’ll look up the PA case, but I can’t promise anything.
Burn the witches! Burn them, I say! Burn anyone who denies being a witch! Burn anyone who would speak out in defence of witches! Burn anyone who argues against the burning of witches! Burn them all!
Human nature changes remarkably little over time, doesn’t it?
