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

[neoncowboy]

'Most stupid ruling'

+1

 

[BenW]

Well anyways, I'm still trying to figure out how arm grabbing is an indicator of proclivity towards sexual molestation, but giving minors "Jesus Juice" and sleeping in the same bed with them is not.

 

[joab]

then HE'S a sex offender by your logic

OK I see that you refuse to actually read my posts so I will say it one more time for the reading impaired.
I have never made any statement that the idiot in question was a sex offender I have in fact stated many times that I believe that he is not.

He is however guilty of the crime that he obviously admitted to.
However gc70s theory is one that I, and apparently most everybody else, has not thought of. I do believe that he was overcharged by the DA, if you believe that he was only chastising the child and that she if fact even did anything wrong, we have only his word and the girl disagrees. Apparnetly so did the arresting agency.

better turn him in for the same reasons (or maybe you don't feel the same now?).

If you make a vaguely intelligent point or even just a comment I may change my position

 

[peacefuljeffrey]

Joab said:

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

and then said:

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

[Quote:
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

So which one is it, Joab?

First you say that he was convicted solely on his actions, which were criminal. I can only imagine that you DO agree with sentencing that is based on criminal actions! But then you challenge us to show where you said you agree with the sentence. (I still get the sense that you DO agree, like WT, and that it's a "too bad, so sad" situation for him.)

Then you say that the sentence was based on the "proclivity issues," which proves that it was NOT based on the crime for which he was convicted, but instead on what the court fears he MIGHT do now that he has shown this bu!!s#!t "proclivity" for child molestation. You're all over the map on this one. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you certainly have seemed to be saying all along that the guy "deserved what he got" because he was convicted of a crime with some "zero tolerance" crap attached.

There is no justification for extrapolating that the guy needs to be monitored for life with an ankle bracelet out of fear that he may molest children just because he grabbed the arm of one of them after nearly hitting her with his car. Does anyone believe that if he had not almost hit her after she waltzed into the street, that he would have had any interaction with her whatsoever?

-Jeffrey

 

[Jeff]

Well anyways, I'm still trying to figure out how arm grabbing is an indicator of proclivity towards sexual molestation, but giving minors "Jesus Juice" and sleeping in the same bed with them is not.

BenW makes a sickeningly good point and, having framed it with the Jacko comparison, puts this case into a whole new level of absurdity. I mean, this guy is walking around with a sex offender label for, perhaps, the rest of his life; and Jackson has no such label.

:banghead:

I wonder what kind of individuals were on that jury.

 

[joab]

Now to those that have actually read my comments, and others

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"...

Those were also the days when a parent could beat his child bloody and nobody would interfere with the way he raised his family

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.
.

My belief that a citizen even a minor has the right to walk freely without fear of violent interaction with other private citizens is bizarre to you? You consider that a knee jerk response? How the heel is it PC driven to expect freedom of travel without molestation from an unauthorized person.

Now if you had actually read the post that I was responding to you would see that it was a mindless post about how I should be castrated and removed from society because I believe that that this guy is a sexuall predator. Which ,I will say for the umpteenth time for all of those to lazy to pull their head out of their asses and actually read my comments, is not my position and never has been my position throughout this entire drivel driven discussion

 

[odysseus]

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.

I am not sure if that is still mixed here or not. I tend to agree exactly with your point. I think at the most he would be liable for assault - by yelling at her and making her feel threatend. Grabbing her arm and calling that battery - well that's a stretch and as someone else mentioned here, based just on this article - he had bad legal representation.

I searched for more articles on the net on this one and can't seem to find another article at this time. I don't know why some here can't see that we are not making this guy a hero, but the argument presented here is that based on what we have to discuss the court went too far in the SO felony on this based on a perception that restraining this youth leads to a chance he could be a sexual offendor in the future.

Make no mistake I hate with a deep passion any S.O. However I abhor courts that would sieze liberties from people based on guesses and not facts. For 2A and libertarian-minded people here, this should be of concern.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Entering a bank office is often a precursor to robbing a bank, so I think on the basis of this ruling the police must now arrest anyone who enters a bank and charge them with robbery.

Getting in a motor vehicle is often a precursor to stealing it, so anyone found sitting in the drivers seat of a motor vehicle must now be charged with grand theft auto.

Turning on a computer is often a precursor to either downlaoding hard-core porn or illegal file swapping, so anyone who turns on a computer must now be charged with possessing pornographic materials AND illegal file swapping.

Apparently it no longer matters if you actually do something illegal any more. As long as you undertake an action that is similar to what criminals may do prior to THEIR committing a criminal act, you are now automatically guilty of committing the same crime.

 

[peacefuljeffrey]

Cellar Dweller and Art, thank you for excellent posts!

Wow, those blew me away! C.D., your logic is unassailable as it applies to the "my dad beat up the store clerk who grabbed me" story, and you are absolutely right about "zero-tolerance = 100% intolerance.

Why has no one in a media outlet pointed out that zero-tolerance LITERALLY MEANS INTOLERANCE?!

I mean, in this day and age, we are told over and over that we will not tolerate intolerance. (I know, I know, paradox. Who ever said that bleeding hearts were logical?)

So now they are elevating INtolerance to the level of being a virtue! Howzat?!


And Art, what you said about the tortured, twisted usage of "assault" and "battery" was very informative. You're absolutely right. There was a time when things made sense, and if your touching of another person (like the ol' finger-poke) was not intended to harm, it was NOT a crime and it was certainly not BATTERY! Nowadays the law acts as though each person has a "no-touch-me" force field around them, and anyone who penetrates it without direct invitation is a criminal. It's absurd and deplorable.

-Jeffrey

 

[joab]

Jeff

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 Reich. Do you relaize that? God forbid you should ever make a stupid mistake borne out of good intentions.)

Many people make mistakes that cost them much more than they deserve and that is unfortunate, no I do not believe that this guy was treated fairly I even believe that this may constitute cruel and unusual, based solely on a very short and incomplete argument.
But his actions put the whole thing into motion, the same as a new drinker driving his buddy home from the bar because he is to inexperienced to realize that he is as drunk as his buddy is. Wouldn't that be a mistake borne of good intention? Would we have any sympathy for him if he were convicted? I think not. We would if he were raked over the coals but the bottom line would be "He should of known better.

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.

Pretty much yeah. To paraphrase and old elementary school teacher "We talk with our mouths, not with our hands. And who appointed this guy father of all children? And why do we automatically believe that the girl was in the wrong.
No evidence has been produced to support that theory

But if he catches the adult stranger doing the same thing to his daughter, he will do everything in his power to hurt this guy as much as he can. (Wow, you're lecturing is a paradigm of moral consistency. )

How is it moral inconsistency to intervene in an unlawful attack on my child. What is immoral or inconsistent about a father protecting his child from an attack by an adult.

If I catch a 28 year old man violating a weaker person of any age I will do what I can to stop the assault. Who here wouldn't give an extra shot to someone molesting their daughter.

By the way "my daughter was hypothetical", I only have son's.

And by the way thanks for responding to something I actually said, even if you disagree with it

 

[Jeff]

Those were also the days when a parent could beat his child bloody and nobody would interfere with the way he raised his family

Those are extreme examples, ala strawman, and do nothing to address the facts that when no harm is given nor intended (such as an arm grab), assault and battery charges are a stretch.

 

[torpid]

Jeff-

...when no harm is given nor intended (such as an arm grab), assault and battery charges are a stretch.

And even furthering your point, adding sexual offense charges are beyond a "stretch" and into abusive injustice territory.

.

 

[joab]

Those are extreme examples, ala strawman, and do nothing to address the facts that when no harm is given nor intended (such as an arm grab), assault and battery charges are a stretch.

I disagree. I believe that allowing strangers to physically discipline your children is just as bad as pummeling them your self.

 

[peacefuljeffrey]

Joab said:

And why do we automatically believe that the girl was in the wrong.
No evidence has been produced to support that theory

Where is the evidence that has been produced to prove that the guy grabbed the girl?

If you think that he needs to provide evidence to prove the girl "was in the wrong," she should have to provide evidence to prove that HE "was in the wrong." Did she have marks on her? I doubt it. The article didn't say that she had visible injuries, and I bet it would have if that were true.

So now you are saying that in order to exonerate oneself, one must have video proof of what happened so one can say, "SEE? I didn't touch her!" or "SEE? That's not sexual battery!"

So you set the bar impossibly high, and thrust your chest out in pride like you've proven your case. Ridiculous. It's like someone jcoiii said in another thread that some dude should have to prove that he did not act in such a manner as to justify a cop forcing him to the ground. How exactly would someone prove what he or she didn't do in a past situation?

And Jeff, you're right, his examples are extreme, and do certainly qualify as strawmen. It's indicative of just how weak his arguments are.

I also wish he would do something about his grammar.

-Jeffrey

 

[Jeff]

joab:

Many people make mistakes that cost them much more than they deserve and that is unfortunate, no I do not believe that this guy was treated fairly I even believe that this may constitute cruel and unusual, based solely on a very short and incomplete argument...the same as a new drinker driving his buddy home from the bar because he is to inexperienced to realize that he is as drunk as his buddy is. Wouldn't that be a mistake borne of good intention? Would we have any sympathy for him if he were convicted? I think not. We would if he were raked over the coals but the bottom line would be "He should of known better.

This is incomplete information. Does the drunk driver make it home safely, does he get into an accident with no resulting injuries, or does he get into an accident and hurt someone? If he gets pulled over for drunk driving, because he was swerving, and the cops give him a ticket for DUI with death resulting, then that is total BS. That is exactly what happened in this case. The arm grabber is no more of a sex offender than the drunk driver is a vehicular killer. Both are based on absurd "proclivities," thought crimes, prior restraint, you name it. So that is why the simple mistake does not equal the punishment that ensued, despite the fact the defendant did make a mistake.

No reasonable person should accept that such a mistake should lead to such consequences.

Pretty much yeah. To paraphrase and old elementary school teacher "We talk with our mouths, not with our hands. And who appointed this guy father of all children? And why do we automatically believe that the girl was in the wrong.

Actually, deaf/mute people talk with their hands all the time. So it is okay to "talk with your hands" to a strange adult who has GRABBED (not assaulted) your kid, but it is not okay for someone to grab a strange child to get that child's attention, following a stressful incident?

I fail to see where simply grabbing the arm of a child who was not paying attention illicits a "father of all children" label. Like I said, it probably wasn't the best choice he could have made, but to call it assault is a stretch.

I'm basing my argument that the girl was in the wrong, based on what I have read. We don't have all the information, so that's what I'm going by. Nothing in the article even suggested the incident didn't happen the way the defendant claimed it did, which makes the whole thing stink even more.

How is it moral inconsistency to intervene in an unlawful attack on my child. What is immoral or inconsistent about a father protecting his child from an attack by an adult.

Like I said, if you had watched it go down the way it was reported by the defendant, you would have to be a violent nut to physically beat that guy:
You see your child, oblivious or ignorant to the pedestrian rules around her, almost get hit by a car. The driver, obviously shaken, gets out and grabs her arm and admonishes her for her negligence-- which could have killed her! You then beat the guy up because he assaulted your child? Your ass would probably get thrown in jail-- because it ain't protecting your child, it's assault.

If I catch a 28 year old man violating a weaker person of any age I will do what I can to stop the assault. Who here wouldn't give an extra shot to someone molesting their daughter.

But we're not talking about violation, are we? This incident is something quite different no matter how you try to stretch it.

And by the way thanks for responding to something I actually said, even if you disagree with it

You're welcome.

 

[joab]

First you say that he was convicted solely on his actions, which were criminal. I can only imagine that you DO agree with sentencing that is based on criminal actions! But then you challenge us to show where you said you agree with the sentence. (I still get the sense that you DO agree, like WT, and that it's a "too bad, so sad" situation for him.)

OK PJ I'll type very slowly so you can understand. Agreeing with a conviction of a crime to which the defendant admits in no way even remotely implies that you agree with the sentencing. Especially since sentencing is a separate part of the trial procedure.

Again While I disagree with the severity of the punishment I agree with the conviction based on his admission that he grabbed the girl.

I have stated before in other threads that the purpose of punishment should be prevention not revenge and, as I have stated here, I think a couple of years probation at the most should have served that purpose.

I also agree, as has been stated also, with gc70s assessment of the DA overcharging, disorderly conduct may have been a sufficient charge to make this guy realize that you cannot take out your road rage on people in a physical manner.

If we believe the guy's chastising story for which no real proof has been given in the short and incomplete article that this discussion is based on

OK are we straight now. Conviction-Good, over punishment- Bad

Then you say that the sentence was based on the "proclivity issues," which proves that it was NOT based on the crime for which he was convicted, but instead on what the court fears he MIGHT do now that he has shown this bu!!s#!t "proclivity" for child molestation. You're all over the map on this one. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you certainly have seemed to be saying all along that the guy "deserved what he got" because he was convicted of a crime with some "zero tolerance" crap attached.

Yes I said that the conviction was based on the proclivity theory I never said that I agreed with it, as a matter of fact I'm pretty sure I said I disagreed with the sentencing like a billion times.
I am not all over the map you just can't follow a straight line

So here we go again
Conviction of crime he admitted to= Good, Excessive punishment= Bad

Although I feel now due to gc70 comments that the DA overcharged the case

There is no justification for extrapolating that the guy needs to be monitored for life with an ankle bracelet out of fear that he may molest children just because he grabbed the arm of one of them after nearly hitting her with his car. Does anyone believe that if he had not almost hit her after she waltzed into the street, that he would have had any interaction with her whatsoever?

Again with the reading comprehension. I did not make the bracelet suggestion I'm the one that said a couple of years probation at most would suffice.

Since you so obviously believe that the girl; did in fact walk out in front of him maybe you, since nobody else will, would share with me what exactly what evidence other than "he said" supports that theory


So lets recap

Conviction based on evidence presented and the defendants own admission, is what?
That's right Good.

And why do I now say that maybe he should have been charged with a lesser crime?
gc70 corrected an error in my thought process, very very good

Overly severe punishment based what might could possibly happen if the stars all line up right is--?
Good, yes that's correct

And what do I think a more appropriate punishment would be?
Right, Two years probation at the most.

Very good now you can go get a cookie

 

[peacefuljeffrey]

I have stated before in other threads that the purpose of punishment should be prevention not revenge and, as I have stated here, I think a couple of years probation at the most should have served that purpose.

Great, another fundamental difference.

Punishment is meant to be PUNISHMENT. "You did something wrong, now you get to suffer this." There is a hope that it may cause a person to say, "Gee, I don't wanna have to go through that again!"

But the big flaw in the thinking that prison or other punishment is "prevention" is that millions of crimes are committed by people who have already gone to prison for other crimes; they've been punished before, and their further crimes are proof that prison/punishment are NOT able to act as "prevention" -- unless you're simply talking about the fact that if someone is currently in jail he is not out in public committing crimes against the populace. What exactly do you mean?

I see jail punishment as having one purpose: to keep criminals out of our midst. The only thing is, we can't exactly justify a life sentence for, say, stealing a car, so we only get the pleasure of having the car thief out of our midst for a few years, most. Murderers, however, should never again see the light of day -- and I in fact think they should be executed.

Jail punishment is NOT a deterrent. Duh. If it was, there would be hardly anyone in jail -- those who are there would have to have been somehow unaware that their criminal actions carried a jail penalty at the time they committed them. And if jail punishment were a deterrent (again, I am assuming you meant deterrent when you said prevention), there would be no people in jail who had ever been there before, because they'd have been deterred.

I'll bet that most people feel a certain amount of vengeance goes into sending someone to jail. "There! See how you like that!" is what goes through the mind of a victim whose attacker goes to jail. They also get the satisfaction of knowing that the person will probably not enjoy his time in jail. And also the confidence that for the period of the jail term, they won't be bothered by this person.

-Jeffrey

 

[joab]

No reasonable person should accept that such a mistake should lead to such consequences.

Which is why as I have stated I don't agree with the punishment

So it is okay to "talk with your hands" to a strange adult who has GRABBED (not assaulted) your kid, but it is not okay for someone to grab a strange child to get that child's attention, following a stressful incident?

Let's put it this way one action would probably be accepted by the court as a justifiable action while the other obviously wasnot

I'm basing my argument that the girl was in the wrong, based on what I have read. We don't have all the information, so that's what I'm going by. Nothing in the article even suggested the incident didn't happen the way the defendant claimed it did, which makes the whole thing stink even more.

And I am basing mine on the statement that she had to "break free"
So we are looking at this from slightly different angles

But we're not talking about violation, are we

Yes we are. Violation does not have a sexual meaning

Like I said, if you had watched it go down the way it was reported by the defendant, you would have to be a violent nut to physically beat that guy:

Maybe not beat but I would very physically rmove his hands from my child.

I have a hard time blindly believing the guys story based simply on an article that is clearly synpathetic to him.

The fact that they charged him with much more serious crimes leads me to believe that there may possibly be more to the story.

The fact that they only convicted him on the lesser of the charges makes me believe that there might maybe not be any more to the story.

All I do know is that he without right or reason went out of his way to physically restrain/assault someone, in this case a minor female, based on his perception that she had committed a censurable act, which in itself caused no disernable great harm to him or anybody else.

His actions escalated the incident to the point that thing got out of control.

His idiotic antics put him in a position to be abused by other idiots using an idiotic argument to impose an idiotic punishment.
When he could have simply called the girl an idiot an went on his way

 

[odysseus]

I believe this current to and fro is a distraction of this thread...

...saying that however I will add that the punishment should fit the crime.

What was the crime again?

 

[joab]

Punishment is meant to be PUNISHMENT. "You did something wrong, now you get to suffer this." There is a hope that it may cause a person to say, "Gee, I don't wanna have to go through that again!"

If that were true then why not just flog them in the town square

Do you punish your children to exact revenge on them or do you do it to teach them right from wrong

But the big flaw in the thinking that prison or other punishment is "prevention" is that millions of crimes are committed by people who have already gone to prison for other crimes; they've been punished before, and their further crimes are proof that prison/punishment are NOT able to act as "prevention" -- unless you're simply talking about the fact that if someone is currently in jail he is not out in public committing crimes against the populace. What exactly do you mean?

I mean exactly what I said the purpose of punishment should be prevention not revenge. As in crime prevention, as in changing their outlook or removing them from the temptation.

I have developed that theory through personal research, 21 days in jail was all it took for me to realize that It wasn't for me, some people take longer to get it some never do.

 

[Vernal45]

Did this man sexually molest,rape, or assault this girl?


NO.

So why must he register as a Sex Offender?


This makes as much sense as coffee cans, atlas, energy food wrappers being PC to search.

 

[WT]

odysseus - he was convicted of unlawful restraint of a minor -- which is a sex offense in Illinois under Article 11 (Sex Offenses) of the Criminal Code of 1961.

Under Illinois law, Article 12, this counts as a battery which is a subset of assault.

Now when this child sex offender gets out, he will have to register with the police no matter where he goes in the USA. He will have to avoid many places where kids will be present. He will have to do this the rest of his life.

Since child sex offenders cannot be rehabilitated, we should clap a monitor bracelet on his ankle.

The female child he attacked with be traumatized forever. She will never forget this raging driver who grabbed hold of her.

 

[Jeeper]

Did this man sexually molest,rape, or assault this girl?


NO.

So why must he register as a Sex Offender?


This makes as much sense as coffee cans, atlas, energy food wrappers being PC to search.

I dont see why in the beginning of this post people were blaiming this on the court. It is completely based on the Illinois Legislature. He was conviceted of a class of crime that falls under sex offenses. Is it a big shock that Illinois has a screwed up law? :banghead: I think the guy is guilty of assault/battery (some states statutorily call them the same thing). The rest is completely out of the hands of the court. It is the legislature.

 

[Jeff]

odysseus - he was convicted of unlawful restraint of a minor -- which is a sex offense in Illinois under Article 11 (Sex Offenses) of the Criminal Code of 1961.

Literal application to the point of lunacy.

Also from Illinois:

-In Chicago, people who are diseased, maimed, mutilated, or deformed to the point of being an unsightly or disgusting object are banned from going out in public.
-Also in Chicago, it is illegal to fish in pajamas.
-One more in Chicago, it is illegal to take a French poodle to the opera.
-It is illegal to speak English, the officially recognized language is "American."
-A state law in Illinois mandates that all bachelors should be called master, not mister, when addressed by their female counterparts.
-In Oblong, it's punishable by law to make love while hunting or fishing on your wedding day.
-In Gurnee, it is illegal for women weighing more than 200 pounds to ride horses in shorts.
-In Joliet, it is illegal to mispronounce the name Joliet.


That's just Illinois.

Now when this child sex offender gets out, he will have to register with the police no matter where he goes in the USA. He will have to avoid many places where kids will be present. He will have to do this the rest of his life. Since child sex offenders cannot be rehabilitated, we should clap a monitor bracelet on his ankle.....The female child he attacked with be traumatized forever. She will never forget this raging driver who grabbed hold of her.

This might be the craziest crap I've ever read on THR.

 

[Vernal45]

The rest is completely out of the hands of the court. It is the legislature.

SO, the courts are brain dead? Just because it is the law according to the legislature, does not mean its a good law. A judge has discretion. Who is more foolish, the fool, or the fool(s) who follow him.