Grab a kid's arm, register as a sex offender.

[Pangloss]

Fitzroy Barnaby said he had to swerve to avoid hitting the 14-year-old Des Plaines girl who walked in front of his car.

 

She said he yelled, "Come here, little girl," before getting out of his car and grabbing her by the arm.

 

He said he simply lectured her.

 

She said she broke free and ran, fearful of what he'd do next.

 

In a Thursday ruling, the Appellate Court of Illinois said the 28-year-old Evanston man must register as a sex offender.

 

Full story here:

http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-molest01.html

[radiohead]

That is _the stupidest_ thing I have ever seen. I feel really bad for that guy. And that girls mom or whoever charged him with that is a douche.

[BenSon]

At most that guys punishment should be some anger management courses. Can he still appeal?

 

~Scott

[In My Memory]

According to the article:

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.

 

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.

According to Illinois Meagon's Law Legislation:

4. WHAT DOES “SEX OFFENSE” MEAN?

... (15) unlawful restraint, when the victim is under 18, the offender is not a parent of the victim, and the offense was committed on or after January 1, 1996, or an attempt to do so;

(16) aggravated unlawful restraint, when the victim is under 18, the offender is not a parent of the victim, and the offense was committed on or after January 1, 1996, or an attempt to do so;

So, it looks like the ruling is consistent with Illinois law, and I cant really find a good reason to challenge it.

 

(I could imagine that most people would argue that "unlawful restraint" isnt a sex crime, but that is a red-herring argument because it doesnt deal with the actual facts or ruling of the case.)

[Pangloss]

It was appealed, and the decision here came from that appeal. He can appeal even further, to the state supreme court and/or the US supreme court. I imagine he will do so, but they have the option of simply chosing not to hear is case.

[Dak]

Its completely retuarded. Id say that 'assault and battery' would be an appropriate charge (or at the very most (depending on whether or not she bruised) actual bodily harm).

 

Making him register as a sex offender not only places him in the same category as rapists and paedophiles (which is a tad unfair), but also places rapists and paedophiles in the same category as people who havent actually done anything (sexually) wrong (which tends to undermine the purpose of the sex-offender register, and could breed dangerouse complacency towards the people who are actually on the sex-offender register for good reason)

 

4. WHAT DOES “SEX OFFENSE” MEAN?

... (15) unlawful restraint' date=' when the victim is under 18, the offender is not a parent of the victim, and the offense was committed on or after January 1, 1996, or an attempt to do so;

(16) aggravated unlawful restraint, when the victim is under 18, the offender is not a parent of the victim, and the offense was committed on or after January 1, 1996, or an attempt to do so;[/quote']

 

those bits are stupid... since when dous non-sexually motivated crimes clasify you as a sex-offender? So if a man muggs a 17-year-old at knife-point (aggrevated unlawful restraint), whats so sexual about that?

 

If i were the guy from the article, i think id consider mounting a test-case to change the law (if im understanding the prosess of test-cases correctly: couldnt he challenge the law itself on the grounds that its stupid?). I cant imajine that being tarred with the same brush which paints paedophiles can be plesant for him.

 

Stupid legislature.

[Glider]

In essence, he was busted for a statistical probaibilty? "You did A. A is not a sex offence, but A is often a precurser to B, so we're busting you for B too". Surely that can't be legal?

[Douglas]

4. WHAT DOES “SEX OFFENSE” MEAN?

... (15) unlawful restraint, when the victim is under 18, the offender is not a parent of the victim, and the offense was committed on or after January 1, 1996, or an attempt to do so;

 

"in my memory" wrote...... So, it looks like the ruling is consistent with Illinois law, and I cant really find a good reason to challenge

The ruling may be consistent with Illinois law, but think of the stupidity of the law.

It says that if a relative, friend, or neighbor restrains the child/young adult for any reason (like doing something dumb), they are automatically a sex offender.

[YT2095]

"the law is an Ass".

[swansont]

The ruling may be consistent with Illinois law' date=' but think of the stupidity of the law.

It says that if a relative, friend, or neighbor restrains the child/young adult for any reason (like doing something dumb), they are automatically a sex offender.[/quote']

 

Sounds like if, by grabbing her, he had stopped that girl from running into traffic and getting killed, he'd be guilty of the same offense. I wonder if having to register as a sex offender when you are not guilty of a sex-related offense qualifies as "cruel and unusual."

[Pangloss]

This reminds me a lot of the "zero tolerance" laws currently enforced at a lot of schools. Kids show up for school with a butter knife in their lunch box and get expelled from the system permanently. That kind of thing seems to happen a lot.

 

This is what happens when people get too fixated on the news.

[Douglas]

Swansont, "cruel and unusual" does not apply to innocent victims of ridiculous laws. It only applies to terrorists who are forced to listen to loud music day and night, exposing them to heat and cold and allowing them to shit their pants....(if they're wearing pants).

 

YT...."the law is an Ass".....Yes, at times it is. The question is...who passes these types of bizarre laws? How do we expose them and get them out of office?

 

Yeah Pangloss, zero tolerance, how about 'zero tolerance' after the application of a little common sense. Has anybody thought of that?

It's all about ass cover.....zero tolerance ?, Ok, pitch 'em out, my ass is covered, screw the person that just got screwed.

[Bettina]

YT...."the law is an Ass".....Yes' date=' at times it is. The question is...who passes these types of bizarre laws? How do we expose them and get them out of office?

[/quote']

 

First...I took out the fwords....and yes they were. Tsk Tsk Tsk. There are kids here.

 

Second... In my opinion, You can't unless you kill all the lawyers. The lawyers are the ones that started this mess. (at least thats what my dad rambles on about).

 

Bettina

[Dave]

YT...."the law is an Ass".....Yes, at times it is. The question is...who passes these types of bizarre laws? How do we expose them and get them out of office?

 

I would imagine it's the people getting elected for office. They want to make themselves look good before they go under the public vote, so they say "look, we've increased the number of arrests for sex offenses!!!1111222" (or thereabouts). At the end of the day, it's all boiling down to political correctness and what is acceptable in today's litigious society.

[-Demosthenes-]

...but also places rapists and paedophiles in the same category as people who havent actually done anything (sexually) wrong (which tends to undermine the purpose of the sex-offender register...

I agree it does make the whole sex-offender register less useful, and is terribly unfair for that poor guy.

[Douglas]

Second... In my opinion' date=' You can't unless you kill all the lawyers. The lawyers are the ones that started this mess. (at least thats what my dad rambles on about).

 

Bettina[/quote']Talking about lawyers, the Washington state Supreme Court ruled recently that when clients sue their criminal defense lawyers for malpractice, they (the client) must first prove they were actually innocent of the underlying charges against them. In other words, if a lawyer blows your case and you're convicted, you can't sue him unless you can prove that you were innocent.

 

It's kind've like if the scalpel slips and you die on the operating table, your family can't sue unless they can prove that you wouldn't have died anyway.

[insane_alien]

I've seen similar but i don'tr think anything was done about it as serious as being put on the sex offenders register.

 

I was walking down the street in glasgow and a little girl about 5years old pulled free of her mother and made as if to run across the road. A large truck (maybe about 20 tonnnes) would have hit her dead on if a man in his fifties had not grabbed her arm to stop her running into the path of the truck. what does the girls mother do? starts beating the man with her shopping bags and screaming that he was a paedophile! the truck driver did see the girl and slammed his brakes on but would still have hit the girl.

 

Where was the logic in that the guy SAVED the girls LIFE and he got the beating of a life time!

[Mart]

Originally Posted by insane_alien

Where was the logic in that the guy SAVED the girls LIFE and he got the beating of a life time!

Say the girl had been a boy whose first name was Adolph.

[Severian]

The problem with all these media hyped stories is that we really don't know what actually happened. The media may be blowing it out of proportion to create sensation. What is he had punched her in the face? Would that be deserving of prosecution? I would say yes, although it is still silly to put him on the sex offender's register (which I disapprove of anyway).

[Phi for All]

I agree that the adjudication in such cases needs to be able to take extenuating circumstances into consideration. While he did unlawfully restrain a minor, there was obviously no sexual intent.

 

I think many of the unlawful restraint laws are to keep people from trying to usurp police authority. People have faced prosecution for trying to detain a felon for the police. Cops don't like it much when civilians get involved, unless they are wrestling hijackers on planes.

 

I read a story today where they arrested a man who dragged a drowning person from the river because he was hampering rescue operations. I think it was because he smirked at the cops for calling him back before diving in to perform the rescue.

 

I think the biggest mistake the guy who grabbed the 14-year-old made was saying, "Come here, little girl."

[Dave]

Political correctness is reaching completely new levels of utter stupidity. That is all I have to say on the issue, really.

[Nicholas]

When the laws are made to protect the lawless

and the innocent are made to be guilty

That's where our courts are at

[Douglas]

Political correctness is reaching completely new levels of utter stupidity.

And who's agenda is it to push this PC madness on us ?

Any ideas?

[Nicholas]

And who's agenda is it to push this PC madness on us ?

Any ideas?

Its the left's doug.

 

Its groupthink. What one thinks all think.

They are using brain washing techniques that come

right out of the Russian textbook on Psychopolitics.

 

The Russians used Pavlov's work on conditioning

and brainwashing to control their masses.

They said they would be able to conquer America

without firing a shot using these techniques to

turn women and children against their fathers.

If they can dismantle the family structure in

america they will have effectively conquered us.

 

Look where we are now. If you can't see that these

techniques are being used on us you are positively blind.

[Phi for All]

And who's agenda is it to push this PC madness on us ?

Any ideas?

I don't think it's a partisan thing. I think PC has come about as a consequence of the fear that's been escalating in the US ever since the Cold War. People who wondered if they were going to wake up to nuclear destruction are now even more worried that a terrorist bomb will go off on their daily commute. As tempers flare due to added stress and fear the PC measures start to proliferate to help people feel in control of their lives and hopefully set some guidelines on behavior. But the guidelines were already there, and we're just forgetting them in our panic.

 

We lose common sense when political correctness is allowed to masquerade as social justice. The balance has tipped and we're letting politicians pass legislation that only takes fear into consideration. This soothes our sense of justice temporarily until problems like this one start happening.