Touch a girl, you're a sex-offender

[CaptainChewbacca]

I agree it was unlawful restraint, but can you agree tacking on the sexual assault thing is a bit much when the circumstance was completely nonsexual?

There is no sexual assault charge. If you read the text it clearly says he was charged with unlawful restraint of a minor, which is categorized as a sex offence. It's the same as a person who commits assault & battery being labeled as a violent offender, or a drunk driver weaving all over the road being charged with careless driving and reckless endangerment.

*stands corrected*
So, its an automatic part of the unlawful restraint?

[Erik von Nein]

There is no sexual assault charge. If you read the text it clearly says he was charged with unlawful restraint of a minor, which is categorized as a sex offence. It's the same as a person who commits assault & battery being labeled as a violent offender, or a drunk driver weaving all over the road being charged with careless driving and reckless endangerment.

Oh, I see. That's what happened. Teaches me not to look close enough at the text.

[J]

*stands corrected*
So, its an automatic part of the unlawful restraint?

Yep.

[Illuminatus Primus]

The sexual predator registration has gotten totally out of hand. Now if you were a sixteen year old and had sex with your fifteen year old girlfriend and they took it badly, and you got convicted of statutory, you're registering just as if you had forcibly raped a little girl.

[Coyote]

Nothing is out of bounds these days, and people are very, very eager for some reason to accuse someone of sexual misconduct. The situation I faced two years ago-- when I helped a drunk girl, a personal friend, home from a party and found out the next day that her "friend" had decided that I must have taken advantage of her-- there was no other way for her to imagine any other outcome.

I ended up having to explain it to the police, but when the girl in question explained that it was a non-issue the whole thing quietly faded away. But it was very eye-opening, the way the "engage witch-hunt mode" switched on immediately, and my feelings after that are pretty much to just ignore peole who may be suffering because helping them = legal trouble and accusations of impropriety.

There is absolutely no room for innocence in our society any more. We have totally conceded the norms of social behavior to the lowest common denominator. All of society must be treated like potential perverts because, well, there are a few actual perverts out there.

[Arcen]

There is absolutely no room for innocence in our society any more. We have totally conceded the norms of social behavior to the lowest common denominator. All of society must be treated like potential perverts because, well, there are a few actual perverts out there.

I wonder why? I believe it has a lot to do with the excuse ridden society.

[Predator]

That's not justice. I dont agree with the holding-up-with-a-toy-gun example, because in such a scenario the offender indisputably intends for the victim to think they are at risk of being shot. There is no reason to believe that this guy intended for the girl to think he was going to kidnap and rape her, even if she thought that he was. He should be innocent until proven guilty where it regards his intentions towards the girl.

I also dislike the way the court views actions as "precursors" to sexual offence, therefore warranting he be added to the sexual offenders registry - which again severely negatively impacts the rest of his life - "just in case", simply on the logic of it. I'm sure that most sexual offenders restrained children as precursors to sexual abuse, but that does not mean that all who restrain a child go on to become sex offenders. And, not all unlawful restraint of a child is equal - there is surely a difference between what he did here, in a high stress and spontaneous situation, and some guy who's gone to the carnival to try and restrain some random 5 year old.

This guy lost his cool and acted inappropriately, and if the charge did not require he be registered as a sex offender I'd have no complaint. The problem is that by having to register as a sex offender this guy is going to face serious problems for the rest of his life. The punishment is vastly disproportionate to the crime.

[Zero]

I definately don't agree with this. I mean, what he did was a bit fucked up, but I don't believe he should have to be registered as a sex offender, as there's quite obviously no intent of sexual misconduct, now or in the future. Is there any reason he should be registered as a sex offender? This just doesn't make any sense to me... call me a fucktard, but I think the registry for sex offenders should be reserved for actual sex offenders.

[Flagg]

I definately don't agree with this. I mean, what he did was a bit fucked up, but I don't believe he should have to be registered as a sex offender, as there's quite obviously no intent of sexual misconduct, now or in the future. Is there any reason he should be registered as a sex offender? This just doesn't make any sense to me... call me a fucktard, but I think the registry for sex offenders should be reserved for actual sex offenders.

You fucktard.

Seriousely though, the guy was clearly wrong in what he did, and if I were a parent and he did that to my kid I wouldn't be very happy, but I think it's understandable considering the fact that I would be pretty freaked out if I almost ran a kid over. I'd like to think that I would excersise better judgement, but you really can't say with absolute certainty what you would do in a situation like that until you go through it.

[Zero]

Yes, he did overreact... but a minute or two of anger because some stupid kid almost got herself run over isn't worth ruining a guy's life over, and putting him on the list of registered sex offenders will fuck him over pretty good. It just seems a bit much for me.

[Jawawithagun]

Being alive is a precursor to most other crimes.

The cime is life! The sentence is death! - the Dark Judges knew what they were talking about

[consequences]

Well, lets see, I've physically kept my kid sister from running out into traffic, and I don't remember being particularly gentle about it. Guess I'd better go report in.

If we can't read minds, and this is a legtimate reason to charge people with what they might have been thinking of doing, then the girl should be charged with attempted murder, as we can't be sure that her walking in front of the car wasn't a suicide attempt.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

Can anyone explain to me very quickly why grabbing that bitch's arm under those circumstances is wrong? In moral, not legal terms.

(As you can see from my choice of words, I have no sympathy for the girl.)

These days, if you bump into a girl wrong, she can probably charge you for sexual harassment anyway. These sex laws are running amok...

Personally, I have nothing but sympathy for the man. That little bitch is irresponsible, almost got herself killed and the man in great legal trouble (you know how it goes when you rammed someone with your car, even if the accident is entirely the pedestrian's fault). If the man's really unlucky, he could get himself killed trying to evade the girl (say by bumping a nearby lamp-post), while the bitch goes off dandy-free.

Honestly, even if he hit her hard enough to knock her to the ground (and make a good bruise), I'd still have sympathy for the man given the circumstances.

Maybe that's what he should have done. He'd still get charged for assault of course, but it would stop the girl long enough for his lecture while not getting him charged for a sex offense

So he grabs her arm. Now, I don't know how Americans process this solution. For me, it is not about "my kid / someone else's kid". It is about a fourteen year old taking a much needed scolding, as an individual.

But somehow, he violates some overly strict statute of "illegal restraint." I don't know how many times I grabbed someone's arm for countless reasons big and small over my years. I wonder whether I should be labeled an unrepentant sex offender (the fact I mostly grab fellow males won't save me because they can always say I'm homo on top of everything else).

Illegal restraint = sex? Who thought up of this wonderful logic to begin with?

Grabbing an arm = attempted kidnapping? From the sounds of it, even the girl agrees that after she broke free and escape, the man made no attempt to chase her.

[Superman]

Right or wrong, it's NOT UP TO YOU to GRAB someone else's kid to "teach them a lesson." With all the criminals running around, do you not see the problem in grabbing a kid? For all anyone knows, the grabber could be a fucking child molester. I don't understand why you don't understand this; It IS NOT okay to grab someone else's child to punish them. If I had a daughter (she wouldn't be behaving like that, but that's beside the point), no asshole is going to be putting his hands on her.

Now don't confuse what I just said with the shit she pulled. You know what I mean...

[Mr. T]

I agree it was way too excessive for him to grab her, but putting him on the list of registered sex offenders, that is going too far. Maybe even falling under cruel and unusual punishment? Probably not, but still far too excessive as it'll ruin his life pretty good. The punishment doesn't fit the crime in this case.

[His Divine Shadow]

But frankly, an adult should know better than to grab a teenage girl who he doesn't know and start lecturing her this day in age. In my parents' generation, and to a certain extent, my generation, other parents in the neighborhood are allowed to give parental proxy lectures and even restrain kids so that their actions can be reported to their parents, but today's parents are too soft for anything like that.

Is it just me who thinks something should be done about this "soft parenting" stuff? Kids need to learn some bloody respect methinks, and I'm almost a kid still.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

Right or wrong, it's NOT UP TO YOU to GRAB someone else's kid to "teach them a lesson."

Scrub "someone elses' kid". She's fourteen years old. She should know what her irresponsible action could easily have led to. The lecture is for the individual, and whether she's "someone elses' kid" doesn't go into my moral computer, just the fact she's a fucking irresponsible person that almost begs for a lecture.

With all the criminals running around, do you not see the problem in grabbing a kid?

Oh, so your justification for grabbing a kid being pretty much absolutely wrong is because criminals also happen to grab kids? Criminals also smoke, drink beer, eat ... etc.

There are many reasons to grab someone, of which criminal reasons are in the minority and quite clearly not the case here.

Yes, I can see value for the concept of illegal restraint. There ought to be something punishing an extended removal of freedom.

I had been blissfully unaware that some interpret this to briefly grabbing an arm in such a scenario, and now it is a sex offense.

As Durandal noted, in the past, everyone would have understood that the odds highly favor this being a well-intentioned (and much-needed) scolding rather than a fucking sex offense. Now, we have this idiocy.

I don't understand why you don't understand this; It IS NOT okay to grab someone else's child to punish them.

Stating your conclusion as a premise doesn't make it a fact.

[Vendetta]

For all anyone knows, the grabber could be a fucking child molester. I don't understand why you don't understand this;

I think the point is that some effort should be put into determining whether this is actually the case before putting them on the sex offender's register.

The charge of unlawful restraint is wholly justified, the automatic inclusion of registration as a sex offender in cases of unlawful restraint is a miscarriage of justice in this case, and probably will be in many others.

It should, at the very most, be an option for consideration in sentencing, rather than an automatic part of the sentence.

[Chmee]

So, this guy would have been better off just shooting her in the leg so he could immobilize her and explain how dangerous her behavior was ....

Something wrong with that picture.

[Stormbringer]

So, this guy would have been better off just shooting her in the leg so he could immobilize her and explain how dangerous her behavior was ....

Something wrong with that picture.

For that matter, he probably could have taken a tire iron to her head and gotten of easier.

To label some one a sex offender, when no sex offense took place is an utter miscarriage of justice.

[Flagg]

So, this guy would have been better off just shooting her in the leg so he could immobilize her and explain how dangerous her behavior was ....

Something wrong with that picture.

Well, like I said earlier, he would probably be in less legal trouble if he had actually hit her, instead of swerving and lecturing her.

[Silver Paladin]

Well, lets see, I've physically kept my kid sister from running out into traffic, and I don't remember being particularly gentle about it. Guess I'd better go report in.

You fucking pervert.

[Silver Paladin]

Seriously though, this is stupid.

We're in an age where parents don't have the courage to punish their own kids from being stupid; so when someone does it for them, they flip out.

Hell if my kid was playing in the street, not only would I let the guy smack him around, I'd smack him after the guy was done with him.

To be honest, the guy would have been better off just running the stupid girl over. At most he'll get what? 5 years in prison? Maybe out after 3 years on parole? As it is now, he's irrevocably screwed for the rest of his life.

[aerius]

So, this guy would have been better off just shooting her in the leg so he could immobilize her and explain how dangerous her behavior was ....

For that matter, he probably could have taken a tire iron to her head and gotten of easier.

The Chmee scenario would get him unlawful, negligent, and dangerous use of a firearm, causing bodily harm with a firearm, and a shitload of other firearms related charges. In most places that's good for a minimum mandatory sentence of 5 years or so.

Stormbringer's case would land him with aggravated assault & battery, assault causing bodily harm, assault with a deadly weapon, and maybe a couple other lesser charges. And if the girl dies, you both get hit with murder 2 or manslaughter.

As I recall, all the stuff I mentioned are felony offences, so good luck putting your life back together after your jailtime.

To label some one a sex offender, when no sex offense took place is an utter miscarriage of justice.

Yup, it's fucked up but that's the way it goes. That law needs a little looking at, like making the sex offender part optional.

[Stormbringer]

The Chmee scenario would get him unlawful, negligent, and dangerous use of a firearm, causing bodily harm with a firearm, and a shitload of other firearms related charges. In most places that's good for a minimum mandatory sentence of 5 years or so.

Stormbringer's case would land him with aggravated assault & battery, assault causing bodily harm, assault with a deadly weapon, and maybe a couple other lesser charges. And if the girl dies, you both get hit with murder 2 or manslaughter.

As I recall, all the stuff I mentioned are felony offences, so good luck putting your life back together after your jailtime.

The fucked up thing is, he's more likely to spend less time in jail and have an easier life afterwards even with a violent felony. A sex offender conviction, even a bullshit one like this, is a life destroyer. Neither is going to be easy to endure but the sex offender charge is far worse.

Yup, it's fucked up but that's the way it goes. That law needs a little looking at, like making the sex offender part optional.

Damn straight it does. This whole thing is a case in which the courts really were out of control, to let some bullshit justification ruin a man's life is reprehensible.