Touch a minor while lecturing them, become a sex offender?

[Crosshair]

I have grabbed my little cousins, held them still, and lectured them when they where doing something stupid. Should I report to Gestapo Headquarters?

Does this guy have a donation fund for his legal bills, this needs to be overturned.

 

[peacefuljeffrey]

Hell, I was grabbed and thrust against a wall by a male ART TEACHER in school because I was making fun of him and his drawl (and his utter lack of masculinity).

If that hadn't happened wayyyyy back in 1987, but today instead, I would probably be a millionaire right now!


-Jeffrey

 

[Cellar Dweller]

Though Barnaby was acquitted of attempted kidnapping and child abduction charges stemming from the November 2002 incident, he was convicted of unlawful restraint of a minor -- which is a sex offense.

Gee, what's missing? No charge of ASSAULT.

Kidnapping does not entail an automatic "sexual offender" label.
Child abduction does not entail an automatic "sexual offender" label.

Sounds like the DA tried to throw the book to see what stuck, and that "precursor" BS - let's try reading again (enlarged for the reading-challenged):

While acknowledging it might be "unfair for [Barnaby] to suffer the stigmatization of being labeled a sex offender when his crime was not sexually motivated," the court said his actions are the type that are "often a precursor" to a child being abducted or molested.

Don't you need all three to commit a crime? Motive, means and intent? Intent not proven, motive DISapproved, means proven (he grabbed her).

Want to play "might have?"
He "might have" raped her and cut off her head and impaled it on his lawn.
He "might have" saved her life; next time she crosses the street she'll look both ways.
He "might have" tied up a valuable DA; a REAL criminal gets off because of a less-vigilant DA fails to fully prosecute.
He "might have" thought up both the universal cure for cancer and the solution for world peace but forgot them because of the trauma of almost running over a child, then being prosecuted by a zealot.
Any of these theories are equally valid.

 

[peacefuljeffrey]

Any word on an appeal?


If this guy does not appeal, he's an imbecile.

The idea that he is being punished for things he MIGHT do, based on some psychobabble unproven crap about "proclivities," should be all an appeals court needs to throw this crap out, and maybe even charge the first judge with some sort of contempt for jurisprudence.


-Jeffrey

 

[joab]

He did appeal. The article was about the appellate court decision to uphold the sentencing

Want to play "might have?"

He might have avoided all this drama if he had not appointed himself Rambo the Crossing Guard

Kidnapping does not entail an automatic "sexual offender" label.
Child abduction does not entail an automatic "sexual offender" label.

Where does it say that in the article, just because it is pointed out that one crime gets the liable does not mean that the others do not

Don't you need all three to commit a crime? Motive, means and intent?

Motive--He wanted to grab the girl
Means-- He had hands
Intent-- He intended to grab the girl
Crime-- He grabbed the girl

Teachers, cousins, even neighbors can get away with things a stranger cannot.
Or do we now teach our children not to talk to strangers unless they piss the strangers off and in that case they are to submit to being manhandled by stranger.

excellent point- anyone here NOT had this happen at one time or another??

Once, a store clerk accused me of shoving merchandise in my pocket and shoved me against a wall. He reached into the offending pocket and found a 2 year old pack of magic cards. Dad went back and kicked his ass. That may have been a better sentence here but the new laws don't allow it.

So now one can be convicted based soley on the "proclivity" of others?

Come on people. He was convicted solely on his actions which were criminal.
The sentencing was based on those proclivity issues

 

[peacefuljeffrey]

Dude, fine, if you want to believe that "proclivity" has been proved here, go on and believe it. The rest of us will just be laughing at the stupidity.

Or maybe you want to go back to high school math to do a unit on Logic.

All molesters must grab.
Not all grabs are molestation.

And if you think that committing one crime (grabbing the girl -- in the context of a near-traffic accident involving a pedestrian) should be punished with the sentence that would be given had a DIFFERENT crime been committed then I hope that one day they pass a law that says you should receive chemical castration for failure to come to a complete stop at a stop sign, and you get nailed.

Where on earth do you get the idea that this grab -- which would not have happened if the girl had not nearly gotten herself hit by his car -- has anything remotely to do with proving that this guy has a "proclivity" toward molesting in the future?

Do you really want to live in a country where we punish based on what you might do but have not done yet?! That's exactly what has happened in this case.

And why would this apply in regard to adults dealing with minors? Surely there is some link between guys grabbing adult women, and those same guys later raping adult women? Why not begin punishing a guy who grabs a woman by the arm as a RAPIST? I mean, who gives a crap that he hasn't actually raped anyone?

***here is where I would have put profane comments about what I think of you*** omitted due to forum rules

We really do not need people who think like you do. It is a detriment to the good of society.

-Jeffrey

 

[Warbow]

Cripes.

I guess we shouldn't be too surprised -- this is Chicagoland, afterall.

 

[Risasi]

Well said Jeffrey.

What ever happened to in loco parentis?

The only way this could have been more insane is if the person who grabbed this girl actually ran out in traffic and shoved out of the way of an oncoming car, then grabbed her arm to lecture her. Then gets slapped for sexual misconduct. There is a Monty Python, or SNL skit in there somewhere.

And people wonder why when you see something wrong, most just keep driving.

People have head knowledge, but common sense sure is going quickly these days...

 

[WT]

Good morning, guys.

Hey, has anybody called Barnaby or his lawyer and invited him over to babysit your children or grandchildren? Might be nice to tell the neighbors about harboring a Sex Criminal who has problems controlling his rage and likes to ASSAULT female children.

Barnaby could probably use a change in scenery, away from 300# Mongo in the Graybar Hotel.

As far as I can tell Barnaby was not a parent, relative or guardian of the victim. Nor was he a person with a special duty to protect a child like a school teacher, gym coach or crossing guard. Barnaby seems to be your run-of-the-mill raging stranger who grabs female children on the street.

I guess some here feel Barnaby is a hero. I don't.

 

[joab]

Dude, fine, if you want to believe that "proclivity" has been proved here, go on and believe it. The rest of us will just be laughing at the stupidity.

Tell you what sport. Go back and find any where that I agree that proclivity is in any way provable.
.You made an incorrect statement that you can be convicted by "proclivity based on this case. I corrected your glaring mistake by informing you and others too lazy to actually read, that he was convicted based on his actions for the crime he committed, which was unlawful restraint of a minor

Maybe you need to go back to Jr. HS and do a unit on reading comprehension maybe then you would be able to understand that the original article was about an appellate decision, which would certainly mean that he had appealed,

And if you think that committing one crime (grabbing the girl -- in the context of a near-traffic accident involving a pedestrian) should be punished with the sentence that would be given had a DIFFERENT crime been committed then I hope that one day they pass a law that says you should receive chemical castration for failure to come to a complete stop at a stop sign, and you get nailed.

Where have I said that I agree at all with the sentence. On the other hand how many times in this conversation have I said that I disagree with it. It's there for anybody actually willing to read.
But he was not given a sentence for a crime different from the crime he committed. He was given the zero tolerance sentence for the crime that he did commit
Again where have I agreed with the sentence

Do you really want to live in a country where we punish based on what you might do but have not done yet?! That's exactly what has happened in this case.

No I don't and yes it is. Which is why I have stated many time for the non reading impaired that I do not agree with the punishment


Are you really so dense or is it just that you want to post but really have nothing to say, that you cannot understand that just because the punishment does not fit the crime , the crime, which he did commit, was still committed

 

[CentralTexas]

Waterhouse

you said-"I can't count on all my fingers and toes the times that someone other than my parents grabbed me by the arm and gave me a lecture growing up." and you list Austin as home. Native Texan? I bet you are. I also grew up here and even (brace yourself east/west coasters and northerners) was SPANKED with a board in school!
Look at where this happened, if it had been west Texas or rural Montana it wouldn't have been a story. I notice in the "what would you do?" and shooting stories on THR it seems to break down into regional thinking. The story of shooting someone breaking into your house before 911 is called in Texas, seems to freak the Boston etc. folks out here. The arguing of these stories seems to also represent cultural area thinking. Don't get me wrong I see some hard core right thinking folks post from these areas but they are the exception.
Don't mean to start a culture war but it has been a slow couple a days around here!
CT

 

[joab]

My point is now and always has been and has been made many times here.

The sentencing was overboard, but the sentencing would not have happened if the Walkway Enforcer had kept his hands to himself
society where that is allowed to happen

We really do not need people who think like you do. It is a detriment to the good of society.

Tell you what, if you make a real effort to actually follow the conversation and act and post like you have some semblance of real thought, then maybe I'll give half a damn about your opinion of my place in society

How much good to society do you think I think somebody that would allow a girl to be assaulted on a public street for her own good is

 

[Warbow]

Good morning, guys.

Hey, has anybody called Barnaby or his lawyer and invited him over to babysit your children or grandchildren? Might be nice to tell the neighbors about harboring a Sex Criminal who has problems controlling his rage and likes to ASSAULT female children.

Barnaby could probably use a change in scenery, away from 300# Mongo in the Graybar Hotel.

As far as I can tell Barnaby was not a parent, relative or guardian of the victim. Nor was he a person with a special duty to protect a child like a school teacher, gym coach or crossing guard. Barnaby seems to be your run-of-the-mill raging stranger who grabs female children on the street.

I guess some here feel Barnaby is a hero. I don't.

Please. The babysitter argument is just stupid -- no competent parent has a stranger babysit for them. Would you call up some guy you don't know who was featured in a news story where he rescued a drowning kid and have him come over to babysit? No, I don't think so.

Sex criminal? What was his sexual crime? Oh, that's right, certain morons within the Illinois court system stuck him with that charge, even though they said he did nothing sexual.

Who here called him a hero? No one. They're angry that a person's life can be ruined by a simple mistake he made where the punishment does not even come close to fitting the crime -- and people like you who think it's justice.

 

[El Rojo]

How much good to society do you think I think somebody that would allow a girl to be assaulted on a public street for her own good is

This is just me, but I think sometimes kids need a good butt kicking now a days. No joke. I am a high school teacher and you find some kids who are cocky and think they are untouchable. These kids are the worst type to be around. I think part of the problem is people who come into contact with these rude and disrespectful teens or pre-teens never beat the crap out of these kids when they deserve it. No joke. Think of it this way. If you can continually push someone's buttons and never face any consequences for it, what is to stop you from doing it some more? Nothing.

The teenager walking in front of your car, not in a crosswalk, really slowly with that arrogant look and arrogant stride that says, "I can slow you down all I want and you won't do a damn thing about it." Everyone has seen it. I have told my students, "Someday I am just not going to see that person. I am going to hit them at a good 25 or 30 miles per hour. I will tell the cops, Oh my gosh I didn't see them. I am so sorry. Oh my gosh this is horrible. Of course the kid won't die, but they will know I made eye contact with them and they will know what really happened."

I am not playing when I say that some kids now a days would be better served by having someone older beat the crap out of them. Maybe this girl needed a good butt kicking. It is sad to think had this man punched her instead of grabbing her or even hit her with his car, he wouldn't be registered as a sex offender right now. Yes he has to accept the responsibility for his actions and this is an unfortunate thing for him.

And I am not talking about beating up kids left and right for the heck of it. The odds are your kids were taught respect and they wouldn't talk trash to people or try and act tough. I am not talking about using violence all the time to solve problems. I just happen to think sometimes that a good butt kicking would humble some of these young jerks and possibly keep them from mouthing off to the wrong person someday and ending up dead.

 

[Jeff]

From what I can gather from joab's posts in this debate, some of his personal philosophies seem to be:

1. If you make a mistake, too bad. Your final punishment may be a little harsh, but hey dude, you made a mistake, so you get what you deserve. (This sounds frighteningly Third Reichish. Do you realize that? God forbid you should ever make a stupid mistake borne out of good intentions.)

2. It is no one's right to lay a finger on a strange child, even if the purpose of that contact is to lecture said child on her dangerous lack of attention.

3. But if he catches an adult stranger doing this to his daughter, he will do everything in his power to hurt this guy as much as he can, even after witnessing the same scenario the defendent reported. (Wow, your lecturing is a paradigm of moral consistency. )

 

[longeyes]

A society that over-protects its children and a society that preys on its children have something in common: a deep sickness of the soul. Something has gone very, very wrong in this culture.

 

[Boats]

I cannot see why anyone is really shocked by this outcome. Illinois is not in the free world after all.

 

[gc70]

Hmmmm. It looks to me like the culprit in this story was the DA.

Instead of just reacting to what you are "supposed" to believe because it is fed to you by the "authorities," take a look at the available information.

A man gets out of his car and grabs a girl's arm. As most of the posts on this topic have said, that is an act that clearly qualifies as assault.

The guy could have been convicted of assault in a heartbeat. But the DA tried a different approach, charging the guy under the sex offense laws. The DA's case (kidnapping, abduction) mostly fell apart, but the guy gets trapped by "restraint of a child" through some tortured logic of "precursor activities."

The "precursor activities" argument is simply without merit. Driving a car too fast is often a precursor to a fatal wreck. Most of you wouldn't be thrilled if you were stopped for speeding and, instead of getting a speeding a ticket, you were hauled away for attempted vehicular homicide.

i wonder if the guy was black and the girl white???

Thorn726 - is it fashionable in California to assume that every unusual case has some hidden racial connotations?

 

[Waitone]

What is so, so sad about this episode is that it trivializes legitimate solutions to disgusting crimes.

When the pendulum swings back to the other side of the cabinet, what will the fora's opinion when someone says, "hey, child molestation laws are being enforced in a manner we never intended. We are depriving people of their civil rights by enforcing the laws. We just need to do away with the whole concept of child molestation because the damage we are doing to innocent citizens is just too high."

Based on the article, the dood should have been thumped for assault but not a sex crime. It is also disturbing that someone can be punished in a manner that has nothing to do with the nature of the offense. What is to keep the logic from developing that says, "You violated your CCH permit rules. You just demonstrated you have no respect for the law. Because you are obviously a threat to society, you need to be monitored for the rest of your life." Given what SCOTUS hath dealt in the last 2 months I dare say I'm not far off.

 

[2nd Amendment]

Tell you what, if you make a real effort to actually follow the conversation and act and post like you have some semblance of real thought, then maybe I'll give half a damn about your opinion of my place in society

Dude, sorry, but this is at best the pot calling the kettle black. You are positing a bizarre view and I'd be hard pressed to assign the label 'real thought" to any of it. It's a knee jerk response minus thought. It's a PC driven response based on the absurd sensibilities of this largely pathetic and irresponsible age. You're free to voice it, but claiming others aren't thinking while you make such a display is...ummm...interesting. let's just leave it at that.

Now WT, OTOH...

 

[longeyes]

Soviet Union redux

One more evidence that the psychiatric mafia has wormed itself into the soul of America. The age of the thought crime has arrived.

 

[Cellar Dweller]

Zero tolerance = 100% intolerance

Once, a store clerk accused me of shoving merchandise in my pocket and shoved me against a wall. He reached into the offending pocket and found a 2 year old pack of magic cards. Dad went back and kicked his ass. That may have been a better sentence here but the new laws don't allow it.

If the store clerk was an adult and you were a minor (assumption based on your dad taking care of it later), then HE'S a sex offender by your logic - why haven't you pressed charges, using this case as a basis? After all, he's still on the loose, and may be molesting RIGHT NOW - and YOU didn't do a thing about it, which makes you an accessory, SINCE YOU KNOW he's an offender and on the loose. Go sign a complaint, then turn yourself in...

If the clerk was a minor, that makes your dad a SEX OFFENDER since he had to restrain the clerk at some point while administering a beatdown - better turn him in for the same reasons (or maybe you don't feel the same now?).

The largest number of missing children are “runaways”; followed by “family abductions”; then “lost, injured, or otherwise missing children”; and finally, the smallest category, but the one in which the child is at greatest risk of injury or death, “nonfamily abductions.”

Source

80% of sexual assault survivors knew their assailant, at least by sight. (National Victim Center and Crime Victims Research and Treatment Center, 1992)

Nearly 6 out of 10 sexual assaults occur at the victim's home or the home of a friend, relative, or neighbor. (Greenfeld, 1997)

Statistically speaking, you're better off in the company of strangers...just something to think about.

 

[waterhouse]

Central Texas

Central Texas,

Not quite native, but got moved to Houston at the ripe old age of 3 months. It was pretty much understood around the neighborhood that any of the neighbors were allowed to bend us over a knee and give a spanking if and when we needed it. This wasn't all that long ago, I'm only 25. I guess I've grown up with one of those "takes a village to raise a child" mentalities.

I don't have any kids, not sure if I ever plan on it, but I know if a guy avoided running over my nephew if the boy carelessly ran into the street and then gave him a lecture about being more careful I'd buy that guy a beer.

 

[Art Eatman]

Interesting how times and word-usage change.

When I was a kid, over a half-century back, "assault" was verbal. Assault was screaming threats at somebody. Physical harm was "battery".

"Assault" has come to be both verbal and physical.

Way back then, just grabbing hold of somebody's arm wasn't considered battery. Neither was poking with a finger in an attention-getting manner. Battery was punching or kicking somebody. You had to actually hurt or try to hurt somebody before the law got involved.

That olden days view makes a lot more sense to me than today's nonsensical twisting of words and meanings. As far as I'm concerned, the motorist didn't "assault" the girl because he did not strike her, nor did he intend harm to her.

But when I was a kid, it was taken for granted that if a kid had an attack of the stupids, any adult had both a right and a duty to "read from the Scriptures"...

Art

 

[Vernal45]

Zero tolerance = Zero Thinking

Zero tolerance = Stupidity