I do not see what he did wrong. This is how things work in the Far West and California is west.
So sayeth the expert on American society?
Ok, I wouldn't want my daughter dating a registered sex offender either. However, we don't know exactly what this guy did or when, the article stating "lewd or lascvisious act" against or 14 or 15 year old girl. Well that could mean a lot. Depending on where you live, if you are changing and a kid manages to see you changing through a window, that could make you a sex offender. Or taking a piss in the woods and someone else walks by and sees your **** hanging out. So the boyfriend could be a douchebag or he could be a victim of circumstance.
In any case, offering a reward for his dead body is most certainly NOT the way to go about handling the situation.
In any case, offering a reward for his dead body is most certainly NOT the way to go about handling the situation.
That also depends on the circumstances. If it was done as a means to steer him away, it can be quite effective. I think that's classified as terrorism under current law, though. If the intent wasn't to actually receive said body, but rather for word to get back to the boyfriend it could work quite well.
In any case, offering a reward for his dead body is most certainly NOT the way to go about handling the situation.
That also depends on the circumstances. If it was done as a means to steer him away, it can be quite effective. I think that's classified as terrorism under current law, though. If the intent wasn't to actually receive said body, but rather for word to get back to the boyfriend it could work quite well.
And yet if someone takes it seriously, you are now partly responsible for that murder. Not to mention that I'm pretty sure you're right about that being terrorism. Or at least threatening bodily harm. Regardless, it was the wrong thing to do both morally and legally. There were other ways to handle it.
And yet if someone takes it seriously, you are now partly responsible for that murder. Not to mention that I'm pretty sure you're right about that being terrorism. Or at least threatening bodily harm. Regardless, it was the wrong thing to do both morally and legally. There were other ways to handle it.
No doubt. I was simply pointing out that it could be effective. Personally, I would find out the circumstances of his being on the list and have a very long talk with the boyfriend that put in no uncertain terms that the law would be the least of his troubles if anything untoward happened to my daughter.
In any case, offering a reward for his dead body is most certainly NOT the way to go about handling the situation.
That also depends on the circumstances. If it was done as a means to steer him away, it can be quite effective. I think that's classified as terrorism under current law, though. If the intent wasn't to actually receive said body, but rather for word to get back to the boyfriend it could work quite well.
So out of curiosity, does this rank higher or lower then the Texas man who killed his daughter's girlfriend and her mother?
So out of curiosity, does this rank higher or lower then the Texas man who killed his daughter's girlfriend and her mother?
Mother? Why?
Of course it's a different circumstance. One father threatened. The other delivered.
It's not quite so cut and dried. A potential sexual predator* is involved in one case. The other is a result of a father's rage that his daughter is gay. Homosexuality isn't a danger.
*Being on the sex offender registry means that there is a perceived need to warn people of the nature of the person. Right or wrong, every state has one. That could be construed as an imminent threat.
In both cases the father took an unjustified act of aggression based on his daughter's choice of partner. In one case the father threatened to kill or have killed the partner, in the other case the father followed through.
Everything else is just detail.
Everything else is just detail.
The devil is in the details.
I can't justify either man's actions. But then again, I wouldn't want to.
It's not quite so cut and dried. A potential sexual predator* is involved in one case. The other is a result of a father's rage that his daughter is gay. Homosexuality isn't a danger.
Every single person you meet is a potential sexual predator. Even if you check their background, how do you know that they just haven't been caught? And being a registered sex offender doesn't necessarily mean that one is a sexual predator. Granted, people tend to err on the side of caution when dealing with their family (and understandably so), but even so claiming imminent danger is a pretty big stretch.
It's not quite so cut and dried. A potential sexual predator* is involved in one case. The other is a result of a father's rage that his daughter is gay. Homosexuality isn't a danger.
Every single person you meet is a potential sexual predator. Even if you check their background, how do you know that they just haven't been caught? And being a registered sex offender doesn't necessarily mean that one is a sexual predator.
Yup. It might just mean you took a leak behind a park bush. From this article:
"... there are more than 600,000 registered sex offenders in the US, including individuals convicted of non-violent crimes such as consensual sex between teenagers, prostitution, and public urination, as well as those who committed their only offenses decades ago."
If you sleep with a prostitute you're a sex offender in the US!?!
I don't think so. I think by prostitution they mean the people selling the service not the customer.
If you sleep with a prostitute you're a sex offender in the US!?!
I don't think so. I think by prostitution they mean the people selling the service not the customer.
The customer gets labeled a sex offender aswell.
If you sleep with a prostitute you're a sex offender in the US!?!
I don't think so. I think by prostitution they mean the people selling the service not the customer.
The customer gets labeled a sex offender aswell.
Always? Because I would think the customer getting that label wouldn't be the case if they adjourned to a motel room or a windowless van first (someplace where they had a reasonable expectation of privacy). But I might be trying to apply too much common sense to existing laws.
If you sleep with a prostitute you're a sex offender in the US!?!
I don't think so. I think by prostitution they mean the people selling the service not the customer.
The customer gets labeled a sex offender aswell.
Always? Because I would think the customer getting that label wouldn't be the case if they adjourned to a motel room or a windowless van first (someplace where they had a reasonable expectation of privacy). But I might be trying to apply too much common sense to existing laws.
The crime isn't that the customer and the hooker had sex in public; it is that the customer paid for sex. If they are caught in public, it is another charge in addition to the protitution charge.
If you sleep with a prostitute you're a sex offender in the US!?!
I don't think so. I think by prostitution they mean the people selling the service not the customer.
The customer gets labeled a sex offender aswell.
Always? Because I would think the customer getting that label wouldn't be the case if they adjourned to a motel room or a windowless van first (someplace where they had a reasonable expectation of privacy). But I might be trying to apply too much common sense to existing laws.
The crime isn't that the customer and the hooker had sex in public; it is that the customer paid for sex. If they are caught in public, it is another charge in addition to the protitution charge.
Well, I realize that "paying for it" is technically a crime. I just thought the part that got you on the list was the whole aspect of intruding on the public. Or maybe I just watched too much of this guy while growing up:
Well, I realize that "paying for it" is technically a crime. I just thought the part that got you on the list was the whole aspect of intruding on the public.
Technically, either could get you on the list. But yeah, paying a hooker for sex is a crime. The fact hat it is a crime involving sex is what gets you on the list. You could hire a hooker and have her pass by your house, and you can still be put on the sexual offenders list. It may make it less likely that you are caught, but if you are caught, you are still charged with a sex crime.
And people still think those on the list are dangerous?
It sounds about as useful to judge someone for being on that list as it sounds useful to judge someone's potential to steal your stuff by skin color. I mean seriously; is there a percentage available somewhere for the number of people on the list that are actually dangerous?
So... the list is made up mostly of people who peed in public, were spotted by trespassing kids while changing clothes, had sex when they and their partner were both 15/16, or had sex with a hooker.
I think that depends where you live. Some places allow for those charges to be lowered to something that won't get you put on the sex offenders list. There was one case where a kid who was 17 was dating a 15 year old. When the guy turned 18, the girl's parents called the cops on the guy. The girl was pregnant and so they arrested him and charged him and convicted him. He was put on the list of sex offenders and because of it, he could not have contact with his new born daughter. He appealed it and the charges were eventually charged. He was also taken off the sex offenders list. I think it was an over zelous prosecutor who was running for office and wanted to show people how tough on crime she was going to be.
And people still think those on the list are dangerous?
A lot of the people on the list have been convicted of ****. There are a lot of people on that list that should be considered dangerous.
It sounds about as useful to judge someone for being on that list as it sounds useful to judge someone's potential to steal your stuff by skin color. I mean seriously; is there a percentage available somewhere for the number of people on the list that are actually dangerous?
That depends on what crimes are considered dangerous. You could probably find some stats on the types of crimes that the people on the list have been convicted of. I think each state keeps its own data base. Because of it, there may be differences in how certain crimes are classified.
I think that depends where you live. Some places allow for those charges to be lowered to something that won't get you put on the sex offenders list. There was one case where a kid who was 17 was dating a 15 year old. When the guy turned 18, the girl's parents called the cops on the guy. The girl was pregnant and so they arrested him and charged him and convicted him. He was put on the list of sex offenders and because of it, he could not have contact with his new born daughter. He appealed it and the charges were eventually charged. He was also taken off the sex offenders list. I think it was an over zelous prosecutor who was running for office and wanted to show people how tough on crime she was going to be.
That's just ridicilous. Those parents should be the ones behind bars.
A lot of the people on the list have been convicted of ****. There are a lot of people on that list that should be considered dangerous.
A lot of people have tattoos. Or piercings. Or a harley. Unless you can actually get to a "90% is seriously dangerous" rating I'm not sure if it's really worth it. Maybe it's just me, but it sounds like the list is catching way to many innocent people right now. Especially if there´s no difference between "multiple **** convictions" and "streaked once, when he was 15".
But maybe it's just me. Do people with a regular criminal record also have to go around telling people that they have a criminal record? Or is it just sex-offenders? What's the idea behind that anyway?
That's just ridicilous. Those parents should be the ones behind bars.
Agreed. It was the result of stupidity. Fortunately it was remedied in this particular case. Unfortunately there are probably plenty of cases similar to this one that have not turned out well.
A lot of people have tattoos. Or piercings. Or a harley. Unless you can actually get to a "90% is seriously dangerous" rating I'm not sure if it's really worth it.
That's an arbitrary number. 90% of people being on the list would still have 10% that are not dangerous. The problem is what do you consider to be dangerous?
Maybe it's just me, but it sounds like the list is catching way to many innocent people right now. Especially if there´s no difference between "multiple **** convictions" and "streaked once, when he was 15".
I'm sure the victim of **** by a 15 year old does not see a difference between what happened to him/her, or what happened to 20 other people.
But maybe it's just me. Do people with a regular criminal record also have to go around telling people that they have a criminal record? Or is it just sex-offenders? What's the idea behind that anyway?
Usually it is one of the questions asked on job applications. Sex offenders are required to list register everytime the move to a new neighborhood.
The problem isn't that sex offenders are listed and their names are distributed to neighbors. The problem is the types of crimes that get you on that list. An 18 year old kid that has sex with his 17 year old girlfriend should not be on that list. An 18 year old that has sex with an 8 year old should be on that list.