That’s frightening. One of my favorite assignments in college involved observing and recording the behaviors of a child without the child’s knowledge. Sounds a little creepy, I know, but it was a very educational experience and there was no harm done to the child. Didn’t know that that made me a molestor.
clair, got a cite for the thread you mentioned (the “strange” man in the park)? I’m really interested.
I was mistaken. She actually was pitting someone else present in the park and mentionned the “creepy guy”, and was flamed (in particular by me, making essentially the same points I made here) as a result.
If I read that op correctly belladonna could easily have ended up on a sex offenders list herself had the mother of that child spotted her when she “pulled him down off one of the towers twice when he got stuck and started crying.”
Should she have left the kid alone? Perhaps called the mother and hope the kid didn’t fall before the mother responded?
There’s clearly a difference between helping someone who needs and wants your help, and restraining someone who’s trying to leave.
But if the mother had looked up to see belladonna holding her crying kid I could easily see her coming unglued and taking it all the wrong way. The mother doesn’t strike me as being all that well glued together to begin with. Clearly belladonna was seeing sex offenders around and the mother might have seen it that way.
No there isn’t, at least not in regards to this law and how it is being used. Someone could have assisted the girl and, upon getting the wrong impression, have called an officer of the law to have charges pressed.
THat’s why this law and it’s application are wrong.
Sam
Ah, I see–like hand-sewn, instead of sewed.
Excellent.
We’ve reaced a point where if I ever see a child in danger, the most I’ll do is call 911. I’ll never intervene, ever. Right on, parents of the year!
Do you have a link to the wording of the law?
Apparently, yes.
No, do you? Seems all we have is an article to go on.
Story goes like this: Child stupidly almost involves herself in car–>human wreck. Driver of said car grabs arm to tear child a new asshole. Child is scared and decides to, what, claim that the ass ripping she received felt to her like she was being abducted? Overzealous DA probably seeking a higher office takes up the call to arms For The Children! and pushes the man who didn’t kill the child to his end and makes him into a sex offender.
Base don this horribly watered-down article, I think it just might be possible to extrapolate that a child who is assisted in some way could get scared, or look for someone to blame and cry fowl landing more people the title of “Registered Sex Offender”.
And the little shit probably deserved a good ass reaming, too.
bock-bock-bock-b’GOCK
<d&r>
I found this: “A person commits the offense of unlawful restraint when he knowingly without legal authority detains another.” The word “detains” isn’t defined for that section; it’s specifically defined as “taking or retaining physical custody of a child, whether or not the child resists or objects” for a later section, but I’m not sure how it’d be interpreted for unlawful restraint.
She only needs to claim that she was detained. Which she was, right?
If you think the driver’s actions should be legal, where exactly are you willing to draw the line? Is there any circumstance where a person shouldn’t be able to grab another person and lecture him against his will?
Well then, I guess we’ll all just have to remember not to grab kids who don’t want to be grabbed, and if we’re assisting someone who needs assistance, we’ll have to remember to let go if they ask us to.
The only situations I can conceive where being grabbed and lectured could be a significant offense would already be covered by other laws (say, my ex has the habbit of grabbing me and lecturing me every morning when I leave my appartment or someone grabs me, forcefully prevents me from leaving, and lecture me for two days in a row or instead of grabbing an arm, the stranger grabs your private parts, etc…).
All other “arm grabbing and lecturing” offenses should be worth, at worst, a small fine. There must be some prortionnality between the penality and the harm actually done, which, in “arm-grabbing” cases, is essentially non-existant.
If, in some exceptionnal situation left to your imagination, an “arm grabs” results in a real and significant harm and the situation isn’t covered by any other law, you still can sue the arm grabber for damages.
Finally, I like pragmatism, and I would rather have the authorities showing discretion in the way they’re handling a situation and assessing the circumstances. “Drawing lines in the sand”, absent any context, isn’t my cup of tea.
The problem here is that a lecture becomes technically “detaining” and “detaining” becomes technically a “sexual assault” which itself automatically results in “life-long public branding as sexual offender”. That’s a fine result of absolute “line drawings”.
So, no, I don’t see the need for an “arm grabbing and lecturing” criminal offense.
Suppose a car salesman sees a woman walk away from the convertible he’s trying to sell, so he pulls her back to it and urges her to consider the benefits of a car with no top in summertime. Or a street preacher starts grabbing “sinners” who pass by, pleads with them to give up their evil ways and come into the light, and refuses to let them go until his sermon is over.
Don’t you think that deserves a little more negative reinforcement than angry cries of “Let me go, I’ll take my money elsewhere” or “Let me go, I’m not joining your cult”? Free speech doesn’t mean you get to force people to listen.
I agree.
I don’t see a problem with calling this “detaining”. If you use physical force to prevent someone from leaving, you’re violating their rights, even if it’s just for a few minutes. You’re still free to lecture them without holding them temporarily hostage.
I agree that this incident shouldn’t have been considered a sex crime, and that being convicted of a sex-related crime shouldn’t automatically brand someone for life.