Deleted
Joined: Oct 14, 2024 17:17:57 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2016 9:30:22 GMT -5
Patty Wetterling (Jacob's mother) is very outspoken against all the sex offender registries despite her child being abducted and killed by one. When you look at a map of where someone on the registry can live after you put up "safe" circles around all the areas near schools, licensed daycares, etc. there is hardly any places left. What is left is often hard to get a place to live in because of the demand (there are a LOT of people on the registry), so there are a lot of homeless sex offenders or ones just living in flop houses. But, the really stupid thing is, this is just their physical address, where they go to sleep at night. So we round them up at night and then during the day when all the kids are out and about the homeless sex offenders who can't get jobs are wandering about aimlessly and we feel safer because they can't live within 300 feet of the school.
|
|
Green Eyed Lady
Senior Associate
Look inna eye! Always look inna eye!
Joined: Jan 23, 2012 11:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 19,629
|
Post by Green Eyed Lady on Dec 15, 2016 9:30:38 GMT -5
Virgil keeps trying to place homosexual acts and pedophilia acts in the same catagory, suggesting that if people accept homosexuality they must accept pedophilia. It's a false equivalence, but so long as he toes that line he's going to have to own what he says. GEL, I understand the point. I also understand Swamp's. I know of one pedophile. I check his work site at least once a year. Knowing he is still there, working and not trolling playgrounds, not slinking in shadows but easily identifiable, while I wouldn't want to work with him, makes him less dangerous in my book than if he was cut loose and floating, desperate and feeling like he had nothing to lose. It's a difficult situation. I get what you are saying, oped. Better the devil you can see and all that. Still...no. Miss T shouldn't feel or be made to feel one bit guilty for backing off this guy. A person CAN control their actions unless they have severe mental incapacitation. I don't care who or what you are attracted to, you can control acting on it. Once you've crossed that bridge, you can stay on the other side.
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Dec 15, 2016 9:43:37 GMT -5
He is married to a woman with young children from a previous marriage. Does she know? The Megan's law website said he is a level 2 offender with moderate risk of reoffending...who the hell would bring him into a home with young children?
And his resume has a lot of Christian charities. One of them is a motorcycle group whose mission has something to do with children. Do they know?
The new wife almost certainly knows, but says the exact same thing that all new spouses/SOs say - he was innocent, he has changed, I know him - he could NEVER do something like that. The Christian charity may or may not know. If they do, they obviously think it's more important to give a person a second chance and/or protect the organization than they do to protect children. Very common theme in religion. People don't want to think about child molestation. It's icky and horrible and they just don't want to think about or deal with it. Plus, the person they know is not the same person who is alone with a vulnerable person, so they only see - and want to believe - one side. No matter what the evidence is, sexual assault is just not something many people can picture or want to picture... so they don't. It's easier that way. (BTW, once again - remember in the other thread about landlords how we were mentioning that almost always if an applicant brings up religion, it's to distract from something bad? Another example here... implying that because he's Christian he wouldn't do something awful like molest children and also appealing to any Christian hiring managers that they are encouraged by their religion to allow him a chance.)
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
THEY’RE EATING THE DOGS!!!!!!!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,622
|
Post by swamp on Dec 15, 2016 9:54:32 GMT -5
Virgil keeps trying to place homosexual acts and pedophilia acts in the same catagory, suggesting that if people accept homosexuality they must accept pedophilia. It's a false equivalence, but so long as he toes that line he's going to have to own what he says. GEL, I understand the point. I also understand Swamp's. I know of one pedophile. I check his work site at least once a year. Knowing he is still there, working and not trolling playgrounds, not slinking in shadows but easily identifiable, while I wouldn't want to work with him, makes him less dangerous in my book than if he was cut loose and floating, desperate and feeling like he had nothing to lose. It's a difficult situation. I get what you are saying, oped. Better the devil you can see and all that. Still...no. Miss T shouldn't feel or be made to feel one bit guilty for backing off this guy. A person CAN control their actions unless they have severe mental incapacitation. I don't care who or what you are attracted to, you can control acting on it. Once you've crossed that bridge, you can stay on the other side. I don't think she should feel guilty, she has a right to hire people she feels comfortable working with. However, I was telling my point of view and why I might consider hiring him.
|
|
naughtybear
Familiar Member
Joined: Aug 10, 2016 17:03:08 GMT -5
Posts: 996
|
Post by naughtybear on Dec 15, 2016 10:01:34 GMT -5
disagree. While I do think Virgil is being a smart ass for the sake of proving a point (and faIiling as children are innocent and cannot give consent), what he is saying is that looking at child porn is no big deal. "nothing more than looking at pictures" used in this argument means child porn. You do understand he is defending sexual predators targeting children, right? That is the entire basis of his argument. So I have no idea why you are saying someone is inferring what he is talking about...this thread is about pedophiles.
And there it goes. That was pretty quick. I am not even going to explain what I meant because it will get lost in translation, I'll be trying to explain something from a poster hours ago, someone else will jump on the post and totally misconstrue what was posted because they will not have read the whole thread and so on and so on.
|
|
giramomma
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Feb 3, 2011 11:25:27 GMT -5
Posts: 22,161
|
Post by giramomma on Dec 15, 2016 10:04:57 GMT -5
I think labeling someone a sex offender IS pretty risky. I think people have to do their due diligence to figure out the why's.
Girl freely of her own will sends boy a naked picture of herself. Judges have determined that the sexting is child porn. Sex offender label for the boy.
One kid has consensual sex with a person that's younger..and has a parent with an ax to grind.. Hello, sex offender. (I find it amusing that we need to accept that kids are having sex at 13, 14 as just as how life is right now...just as long as they only have sex with other 13 or 14 year olds...If they have sex with someone older..well, then it's bad.)
Sexual deviance (for lack of a better word) is also tricky. It's not all cut and dried for the reasons why, whether or not the person can stop their behavior, etc. I think it's OK to say "Well, I don't want to get drawn into the drama because I don't have to the time/energy/interest to learn about the hows and whys of this particular case to fully determine if this person is a good fit or not, and to see what level of risk my business will incur because of his/her behavior."
One of our friends had some sort of mental/emotional break and threatened to kill his wife and kids (guy had access to guns.) He called us from jail a few times looking for help. We ignored (and actually, the police told us to as well.) Who knows what was going on. I'm fairly versed in mental illness/poor mental health/destructive behavior. But, I didn't want to get fully involved in the situation to determine if we could help or not. Because the risk to my family was not worth my involvement to know the facts, so that I could make a reasonable decision for myself about whether or not to get involved.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
THEY’RE EATING THE DOGS!!!!!!!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,622
|
Post by swamp on Dec 15, 2016 10:11:52 GMT -5
Absolutely. However, this conviction was from 1997, but even then it was difficult to get a conviction.
Not necessarily true. Touching a kid is a maximum 7 years in prison, there were 2 kids, he got maxed on the sentence. Which is pretty common for sex offenders after trial, especially if they continue to deny
No, the rating system in NY is set so that if there are more than 1 kid victim, you will be at least a level 2. He was convicted in Syracuse. I'm surprised he wasn't a Level 3, there must have been some mitigating factors, like a lack of criminal history and no drug/alcohol problems.
|
|
movingforward
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 15, 2011 12:48:31 GMT -5
Posts: 8,386
|
Post by movingforward on Dec 15, 2016 10:12:39 GMT -5
I agree labeling someone as a "sex offender" does not always tell the entire story. There are states where an 18 yr old boy having consensual sex with a 16 yr old girl can be prosecuted and labeled as a sex offender. That kind of stuff irritates the hell out of me.
In Miss T's case though the sex offender label seems to fit. I agree with swamp that everyone needs a job but I am not sure I could give this guy one either.
And I am not sure why you all even engage with Virgil on these type of topics.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Dec 15, 2016 10:16:25 GMT -5
Absolutely. However, this conviction was from 1997, but even then it was difficult to get a conviction.
Not necessarily true. Touching a kid is a maximum 7 years in prison, there were 2 kids, he got maxed on the sentence. Which is pretty common for sex offenders after trial, especially if they continue to deny
No, the rating system in NY is set so that if there are more than 1 kid victim, you will be at least a level 2. He was convicted in Syracuse. I'm surprised he wasn't a Level 3, there must have been some mitigating factors, like a lack of criminal history and no drug/alcohol problems.
Swamp obviously has details the rest of you don't...I sent her the article I found!
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Dec 15, 2016 10:18:14 GMT -5
I think labeling someone a sex offender IS pretty risky. I think people have to do their due diligence to figure out the why's. In every state that I'm familiar with (someone please post if they know of a state that has a different model) the sex offender registry contains not just a description of the violation but a "risk" rating indicating how likely the state has determined the person is to re-offend. The registry doesn't just list everybody under the big heading "sex offender", it gives enough information so you would very quickly know if this was a Romeo/Juliet type issue or something else.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Dec 15, 2016 10:18:32 GMT -5
I think labeling someone a sex offender IS pretty risky. I think people have to do their due diligence to figure out the why's.Girl freely of her own will sends boy a naked picture of herself. Judges have determined that the sexting is child porn. Sex offender label for the boy. One kid has consensual sex with a person that's younger..and has a parent with an ax to grind.. Hello, sex offender. (I find it amusing that we need to accept that kids are having sex at 13, 14 as just as how life is right now...just as long as they only have sex with other 13 or 14 year olds...If they have sex with someone older..well, then it's bad.) Sexual deviance (for lack of a better word) is also tricky. It's not all cut and dried for the reasons why, whether or not the person can stop their behavior, etc. I think it's OK to say "Well, I don't want to get drawn into the drama because I don't have to the time/energy/interest to learn about the hows and whys of this particular case to fully determine if this person is a good fit or not, and to see what level of risk my business will incur because of his/her behavior." One of our friends had some sort of mental/emotional break and threatened to kill his wife and kids (guy had access to guns.) He called us from jail a few times looking for help. We ignored (and actually, the police told us to as well.) Who knows what was going on. I'm fairly versed in mental illness/poor mental health/destructive behavior. But, I didn't want to get fully involved in the situation to determine if we could help or not. Because the risk to my family was not worth my involvement to know the facts, so that I could make a reasonable decision for myself about whether or not to get involved. Which is what I did by googling him to find out what really happened. The details horrified me
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Dec 15, 2016 10:19:31 GMT -5
I think labeling someone a sex offender IS pretty risky. I think people have to do their due diligence to figure out the why's. In every state that I'm familiar with (someone please post if they know of a state that has a different model) the sex offender registry contains not just a description of the violation but a "risk" rating indicating how likely the state has determined the person is to re-offend. The registry doesn't just list everybody under the big heading "sex offender", it gives enough information so you would very quickly know if this was a Romeo/Juliet type issue or something else. Exactly. Not to mention, you get a lot of details by googling the person's name.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Dec 15, 2016 10:20:14 GMT -5
disagree. While I do think Virgil is being a smart ass for the sake of proving a point (and faIiling as children are innocent and cannot give consent), what he is saying is that looking at child porn is no big deal. "nothing more than looking at pictures" used in this argument means child porn. You do understand he is defending sexual predators targeting children, right? That is the entire basis of his argument. So I have no idea why you are saying someone is inferring what he is talking about...this thread is about pedophiles.
And there it goes. That was pretty quick. I am not even going to explain what I meant because it will get lost in translation, I'll be trying to explain something from a poster hours ago, someone else will jump on the post and totally misconstrue what was posted because they will not have read the whole thread and so on and so on. I haven't a clue what you are talking about when you say "and there it goes".
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Dec 15, 2016 10:21:30 GMT -5
Absolutely. However, this conviction was from 1997, but even then it was difficult to get a conviction.
Not necessarily true. Touching a kid is a maximum 7 years in prison, there were 2 kids, he got maxed on the sentence. Which is pretty common for sex offenders after trial, especially if they continue to deny
No, the rating system in NY is set so that if there are more than 1 kid victim, you will be at least a level 2. He was convicted in Syracuse. I'm surprised he wasn't a Level 3, there must have been some mitigating factors, like a lack of criminal history and no drug/alcohol problems.
I am very, very glad to hear that NY appears to have a much stronger system to protect children than does either Florida or Arizona. The justice system was part of why I stopped working with foster kids in Arizona and why I haven't volunteered in Florida. I know it's important and have the utmost respect for the people who can keep doing it, but it was just too hard to see case after case after case of really horrific stuff where no action was taken or possible.
|
|
movingforward
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 15, 2011 12:48:31 GMT -5
Posts: 8,386
|
Post by movingforward on Dec 15, 2016 10:22:54 GMT -5
I honestly do hope this guy finds a job. I don't think having an extra 40-50 hrs a week of free time on his hands is a good thing.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Dec 15, 2016 10:23:25 GMT -5
He is married to a woman with young children from a previous marriage. Does she know? The Megan's law website said he is a level 2 offender with moderate risk of reoffending...who the hell would bring him into a home with young children?
And his resume has a lot of Christian charities. One of them is a motorcycle group whose mission has something to do with children. Do they know?
The new wife almost certainly knows, but says the exact same thing that all new spouses/SOs say - he was innocent, he has changed, I know him - he could NEVER do something like that. The Christian charity may or may not know. If they do, they obviously think it's more important to give a person a second chance and/or protect the organization than they do to protect children. Very common theme in religion. People don't want to think about child molestation. It's icky and horrible and they just don't want to think about or deal with it. Plus, the person they know is not the same person who is alone with a vulnerable person, so they only see - and want to believe - one side. No matter what the evidence is, sexual assault is just not something many people can picture or want to picture... so they don't. It's easier that way. (BTW, once again - remember in the other thread about landlords how we were mentioning that almost always if an applicant brings up religion, it's to distract from something bad? Another example here... implying that because he's Christian he wouldn't do something awful like molest children and also appealing to any Christian hiring managers that they are encouraged by their religion to allow him a chance.) I wasn't implying anything as far as him being Christian meaning he wasn't a bad guy. I'm not religious so that wouldn't pull me at all to hire or not hire him. To me it was more the irony of it...try to act all religious and the perfect family guy while being a sexual predator. But when I googled the one and realized it was a charity that involves children, that very much concerned me. Because yes, once I realized what kind of a sick fuck he was I spent a lot of time googling what he had on his resume.
|
|
giramomma
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Feb 3, 2011 11:25:27 GMT -5
Posts: 22,161
|
Post by giramomma on Dec 15, 2016 10:23:31 GMT -5
I think labeling someone a sex offender IS pretty risky. I think people have to do their due diligence to figure out the why's. In every state that I'm familiar with (someone please post if they know of a state that has a different model) the sex offender registry contains not just a description of the violation but a "risk" rating indicating how likely the state has determined the person is to re-offend. The registry doesn't just list everybody under the big heading "sex offender", it gives enough information so you would very quickly know if this was a Romeo/Juliet type issue or something else. I haven't been on a sex offender's list in a really long time..So I am unfamiliar with how it works. I'm not sure I'd buy into the the "risk of re-offending part", though.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Dec 15, 2016 10:24:59 GMT -5
I honestly do hope this guy finds a job. I don't think having an extra 40-50 hrs of free time on his hands is a good thing. He has a job. He has worked at the same company for 7 years. He actually seems bright so I was surprised at the shit money he makes. Now I realize that he probably is very luckyi to have landed that job and is pretty much stuck there.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 14, 2024 17:17:57 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2016 10:30:15 GMT -5
I just perused our predatory list (I have no clue if this is different than regular sex offender) and the only rating it says is "yes" or "no" under Level 3. You don't know if they're a 1 or a 2.
BTW, nearly every one of them I opened had in bold red Offender is NonCompliant. Address information may not be current. So, apparently the forcing them to live in certain areas isn't happening anyhow.
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Dec 15, 2016 10:31:01 GMT -5
(BTW, once again - remember in the other thread about landlords how we were mentioning that almost always if an applicant brings up religion, it's to distract from something bad? Another example here... implying that because he's Christian he wouldn't do something awful like molest children and also appealing to any Christian hiring managers that they are encouraged by their religion to allow him a chance.) I wasn't implying anything as far as him being Christian meaning he wasn't a bad guy. I'm not religious so that wouldn't pull me at all to hire or not hire him. To me it was more the irony of it...try to act all religious and the perfect family guy while being a sexual predator. I know you weren't. The irony is the point of my post. In another thread about landlording, someone mentioned that they were always leery of tenant applicants who brought up religion in their application or discussion. I had added to the comment by saying that in my experience, people who bring up religion in a secular business context - whether they were potential tenants, job applicants, business vendors, people who owed your company money - were waving a big red flag. Unfortunately, dishonest people seem to like to use religion as a way to distract from other stuff and it's usually the scammers who bring religion into a situation where it's irrelevant or inappropriate. So now, whenever someone brings up religion in a secular setting, I'm more likely to assume they're a crook than that they're actually religious.
|
|
taz157
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:50:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,944
|
Post by taz157 on Dec 15, 2016 10:32:15 GMT -5
I honestly do hope this guy finds a job. I don't think having an extra 40-50 hrs of free time on his hands is a good thing. He has a job. He has worked at the same company for 7 years. He actually seems bright so I was surprised at the shit money he makes. Now I realize that he probably is very luckyi to have landed that job and is pretty much stuck there. Hopefully he hadn't turned in his 2 week notice by the time you told him that he wasn't getting the job.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Dec 15, 2016 10:33:46 GMT -5
I just perused our predatory list (I have no clue if this is different than regular sex offender) and the only rating it says is "yes" or "no" under Level 3. You don't know if they're a 1 or a 2. BTW, nearly every one of them I opened had in bold red Offender is NonCompliant. Address information may not be current. So, apparently the forcing them to live in certain areas isn't happening anyhow. This guy isn't forced to live in any area. In fact, based on the article that I read there are no limitations as to how far he needs to be from schools, children, playgrounds, etc. because he served the maximum sentence. All he has to do is register as a sex offender and he is free to live wherever he wants. In fact, one of the companies he worked for was located in the same building as a daycare center. The parents had a fit once someone realized a registered sex offender was working in the building. He was terminated. Legally he was doing nothing wrong which is scary.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Dec 15, 2016 10:35:36 GMT -5
I wasn't implying anything as far as him being Christian meaning he wasn't a bad guy. I'm not religious so that wouldn't pull me at all to hire or not hire him. To me it was more the irony of it...try to act all religious and the perfect family guy while being a sexual predator. I know you weren't. The irony is the point of my post. In another thread about landlording, someone mentioned that they were always leery of tenant applicants who brought up religion in their application or discussion. I had added to the comment by saying that in my experience, people who bring up religion in a secular business context - whether they were potential tenants, job applicants, business vendors, people who owed your company money - were waving a big red flag. Unfortunately, dishonest people seem to like to use religion as a way to distract from other stuff and it's usually the scammers who bring religion into a situation where it's irrelevant or inappropriate. So now, whenever someone brings up religion in a secular setting, I'm more likely to assume they're a crook than that they're actually religious. gotcha. I misunderstood what you were saying.
One of the guys in my department said something similar. He is a huge liberal and is honestly very accepting of almost everyone but he said he is very mistrusting of anyone overly religious. I do think that is unfair but he explained where he is coming from (catholic church and priests...enough said) so I get it.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Dec 15, 2016 10:37:00 GMT -5
He has a job. He has worked at the same company for 7 years. He actually seems bright so I was surprised at the shit money he makes. Now I realize that he probably is very luckyi to have landed that job and is pretty much stuck there. Hopefully he hadn't turned in his 2 week notice by the time you told him that he wasn't getting the job. He used his current company as a reference so I don't know.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Dec 15, 2016 10:41:08 GMT -5
Completely forgetting things like consent and age of consent. The arbitrary moral constructs of bigots. Love is what matters. Even the ancient Greeks were more enlightened than us in this regard. They saw sex with youths not as something dirty and oppressive to be feared, but as a celebration of life, love, and beauty. It was an intimate way of initiating the young into a loving community. Many tribal cultures observe similar initiation rites today, even with close relatives, and enjoy a closeness you could never imagine. You're too busy hating them because you find their sexuality icky. You'd rather punish them for being "deviants" based on your own bigoted moral code. If you'd only lift up your eyes, you'd see they're your doctors and teachers, firemen and paramedics, counselors and friends, mothers, fathers, sisters and brothers. Hate is never the way.
|
|
movingforward
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 15, 2011 12:48:31 GMT -5
Posts: 8,386
|
Post by movingforward on Dec 15, 2016 10:42:41 GMT -5
Whatever
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Dec 15, 2016 10:43:55 GMT -5
Very good point...I'm not getting sucked into feeding a troll!
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Dec 15, 2016 10:46:31 GMT -5
Virgil keeps trying to place homosexual acts and pedophilia acts in the same catagory, suggesting that if people accept homosexuality they must accept pedophilia. It's a false equivalence, but so long as he toes that line he's going to have to own what he says. Why should this man endure your hatred and be discriminated against by you because of your moral code? He's capable of performing the job. He shouldn't have the right to make a living because you and Miss T. hate him? You're worse than he is.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Dec 15, 2016 10:48:22 GMT -5
Because you don't have a counterargument to save your life. At least you're aware of that now.
|
|
movingforward
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 15, 2011 12:48:31 GMT -5
Posts: 8,386
|
Post by movingforward on Dec 15, 2016 10:49:40 GMT -5
Whatever
|
|